





► zy :> ^> ^ 



BiS^15SB||>>§3 






).o ::> ;.>o,^ -^t '3 ^L> 2>> V .^>:^ > x* r» ■\:>*^^i> ^ o. 






>i);3 :>A^ ^. j>>'">3 >z> 






> :> :> 7) >> 






Oj2> :> >^v» 3> :> > 



-^>'>^3^^ ^>3^ l» >> 
> > ^ ) 0)^» > > i> o 






3^ >:> 












Z>3 3 






^LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. J 

n; ■^- ./I 6 2,3 57 

'U UNITED STaTESCT' AivicHXA. ^ 






>3) ^>7> .-^^ \ 

3> > Z>)3!^3.-> 



_tj. ^-^j^ :s-~*: ':7a^«r 



^ y 3 >3 



> > )))~> :> . J. 

' >-> > > » > > ;> > 



) ) _j> ^ ) ) > 



32>> 

— ^>>y> 






>i ::> »:> > 



r> > j> yo :_ 






> >> > : 

> .>o 

* > 

► > 
> 

> 
> 
• ' > 

> -) > 

' > ':> 
» > 






^>3 > 






> ^ > > 



> 3» 
























> 3. -■ TT 






^■:>^^>^ 

































3^ 









THE ^O* *• 

ANTI-SLAVERY EXAMINER. 



-1 

-r 



THE 



BIBLE AGAINST SLAVERY. 



AN INQUIRY INTO THE 



PATRIARCHAL AND MOSAIC SYSTEMS 



ON THE SUBJECT OP 



HUMAN RIGHTS. 



M^^:9. ^0 






JFourtJ) lETJitfon— ISnlargtt). 



NEW YORK: 

PUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY, 
NO. 143 NASSAU STREET. 



1838. 



' TbiB No. contains 7 sheets-Postage, under 100 miles, 10* cents ; over 100 miles, U cent. 

CC!7" Fleasc read and Circulate-. „{rd;) 



Collecte:! ?.?t. 



^v 

I 






CONTENTS 



page. 

5—9 
6 
8 
9 

10—11 
10 
11 

11—17 
15 



DEFINITION OF SLAVERY 

Negative, ...••••** 

Affirmative, 

Legal, 

THE MORAL LAW AGAINST SLAVERY, 

"ThOD SHALT NOT STEAL," 

"ThOH SHALT NOT COVET," 

MAN-STEALING— EXAMINATION OF EX. xxi. 16, . 

Separation of man from brutes and things, 
IMPORT OF "BUY" AND "BOUGHT WITH MONEY," . • 17-23 

Servants sold themselves, 

RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES SECURED BY LAW TO SER- 

VANTS, ^^^^ 

SERVANTS WERE VOLUNTARY, ••••'• ^^"H 
Runaway Servants not to be delivered to their Masters, ^3 

SERVANTS WERE PAID WAGES, ^^—^"^ 

MASTERS NOT " OWNERS," ^^~^* 

Servants NOT subjected TO THE USES OP property, • • *' 

Servants expressly distinguished FROM property, . . . -w 

Examination of Gen. xii. 5-" The sodls that they had ^^ 

gotten," &c. ., 

Social EauALiTY of Servants and Masters, • • • 

Condition of the Gibeonites as subjects of the Hebrew «. ^^ 

Commonwealth, cc k^ 

Egyptian Bondage contrasted with American Slavery, • oa-M 

Condition of American Slaves, ^^ 

III fed, . . . • ^q 

III clothed, gg 

Over-worked, gj 

Their dwelling unfit for human beings, " " ' ' 61 
Moral condition — "Heathens," ..•■•• 



Vf CONTENTS. 

OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 

" CURSED BE CAANAN," &c.— EXAMINATION OF GEN. ix. 25, 66—68 

"FOR HE IS HIS MONEY," &c.— EXAMINATION OF EX. 

xxi. 20, 21, 68—71 

EXAMINATION OF LEV. xxv. 44—46, 71—78 

" Both thy BONDMEN, &c., shall be op the heathen," 72 

" Of them shall ye BUY," 73 

" They shall be your bondmen FOREVER," ... 74 

» Ye shall take them as an INHERITANCE," &c. . . 76 

EXAMINATION OF LEV. xxv. 39, 40.— THE FREEHOLDER 

NOT TO " SERVE AS A BOND SERVANT," . 78—88 

Difference between Hired and Bought Servants, . . 79 

Bought Servants the most favored and honored class, . 80 

Israelites and Strangers belonged to both classes, . 83 

Israelites, Servants to the Strangers, ..... 84 
Reasons for the release of the Israelitish Servants in the 

seventh year, 84 

Reasons for assigning the Strangers to a longer service, . 84 

Reasons for calling them the Servants, .... 81 
Different kinds of service assigned to the Israelites and 

Strangers, 85 

REVIEW OF ALL THE CLASSES OF SERVANTS WITH THE 

MODIFICATIONS OF E4CH, .... 88—91 

Political disabilities of the Strangers, .... 89 

EXAMINATION OF EX. xxi. 2—6.—'' IF THOU BUY AN HE 

BREW SERVANT," &c 90 

THE CANAANITES NOT SENTENCED TO UNCONDITIONAL 

EXTERMINATION 91—98 



THE 



BIBLE AGAINST SLAVERY 



The spirit of slavery never seeks refuge in the Bible of its own ac- 
cord. The horns of the altar are its last resort — seized only in despe- 
ration, as it rushes from the terror of the avenger's arm. Like other 
unclean spirits, it " hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, 
lest its deeds should be reproved." Goaded to phrenzy in its conflicts 
with conscience and common sense, denied all quarter, and hunted from 
every covert, it vaults over the sacred inclosure and courses up and 
down the Bible, " seeking rest, and finding none." The law of love, 
glowing on every page, flashes around it an omnipresent anguish and 
despair. It shrinks from the hated light, and howls under the consum- 
ing touch, as demons quailed before the Son of God, and shrieked, 
« Torment us not." At last, it slinks away under the types of the' 
Mosaic system, and seeks to burrow out of sight among their shadows 
Vain hope ! Its asylum is its sepulchre ; its city of refuge, the city of 
destruction. It flies from light into the sun ; from heat, into devour- 
ing fire ; and from the voice of God into the thickest of His 
thunders. 



DEFINITION OF SLAVERY. 

If we would know whether the Bible sanctions slavery, we must de- 
termine what slavery is. An element, is one thing ; a relation, anotlier ; 
an appendage, another. Relations and appendages presuppose other 
things to which they belong. To regard them as the things them- 
selves, or as constituent parts of them, leads to endless fallacies. 



6 

Mere political disabilities are often confounded with slavery ; so are 
many relations, and tenures, indispensible to the social state. We will 
specify some of these. 

1. Privation of suffrage. Then minors are slaves. 

•2. Ineligibility to office. Then females are slaves. 

3. Taxation without representation. Then slaveholders in the 

District of Columbia are slaves. 

4. Privation of one's oath in law. Then atheists are slaves. 

5. Privation of trial by jury. Then all in France are slaves. 
G. Being required to support a particular religion. Then 

the people of England are slaves. 

7. Apprenticeship. The rights and duties of master and appren- 
tice are correlative. The claim of each upon the other results from 
his obligation to the other. Apprenticeship is based on the principle 
of equivalent for value received. The rights of the apprentice are 
secured, equally with those of the master. Indeed while the law is 
just to the former it is benevolent to the latter ; its main design being 
rather to benefit the apprentice than the master. To the master it 
secures a mere compensation — to the apprentice, both a compensation 
and a virtual gratuity in addition, he being of the two the greatest 
gainer. The law not only recognizes the right of the apprentice to a 
reward for his labor, but appoints the wages, and enforces the pay- 
ment. The master's claim covers only the services of the apprentice. 
The apprentice's claim covers equally the services of the master. 
Neither can hold the other as property ; but each holds property in 
the services of the other, and both equally. Is this slavery ? 

8. Filial subordination and parental claims. Both are nature's 
dictates, and intrinsic elements of the social state ; the natural affections 
which blend parent and child in one, excite each to discharge those 
offices incidental to the relation, and are a shield for mutual protection. 
The parent's legal claim to the child's services, is a slight return for 
the care and toil of his rearing, exclusively of outlays for support and 
education. This provision is, with the mass of mankind, indispensable 
to the preservation of the family state. The child, in helping his 
parents, helps himself— increases a common stock, in which he has a 
share ; while his most faithful services do but acknowledge a debt that 
money cannot cancel. 

9. Claims of government on subjects. Governments owe their 
subjects protection ; subjects owe just governments allegiance and 
support. The obligations of both arc reciprocal, and the benefits 
received by both are mutual, equal, and voluntarily rendered. 



10. Bondage for ckime. Must innocence be punished because 
guilt suffers penalties ? True, the criminal works for the government 
without pay ; and well he may. . He owes the government. A cen- 
tury's work would not pay its drafts on him. He will die a public 
defaulter. Because laws make men pay their debts, shall those be 
forced to pay who owe nothing ? The law makes no criminal, pro- 
perty. It restrains his liberty, and makes him pay something, a 
mere penny in the pound, of his debt to the government ; but it does 
not make him a chattel. Test it. To own property, is to own its 
product. Are children born of convicts, government property ? 
Besides, can property be guilty ? Can chattels deserve punish- 
ment? 

11. Restraints TTPON FREEDOM. Children are restrained by parents, 
pupils, by teachers, patients, by physicians, corporations, by charters, 
and legislatures, by constitutions. Embargoes, tariffs, quarantine, and 
all other laws, keep men from doing as they please. Restraints are the 
web of civilized society, warp and woof. Are they slavery ? then a 
government of law, is the climax of slavery I 

12. Involuntary or compulsory service. A juryman is empan- 
nelled against his will, and sit he must. A sheriff orders his posse ; 
bystanders must turn in. Men are compelled to remove nuisances, 
pay fines and taxes, support their families, and " turn to the right 
as the law directs," however much against their wills. Are they 
therefore slaves ? To confound slavery with involuntary service is ab- 
surd. Slavery is a condition. The sla.ve's feelings toward it cannot 
alter its nature. Whether he desires or detests it, the condition re- 
mains the same. The slave's willingness to be a slave is no palliation 
of the slaveholder's guilt. Suppose he should really believe himself a 
chattel, and consent to be so regarded by others, would that muke him 
a chattel, or make those guiltless who hold him as such ? I may be 
sick of life, and I tell the assassin so that stabs me ; is he any the less 
a murderer ? Does my consent to his crime, atone for it ? my part- 
nership in his guilt, blot out his part of it ? The slave's willingness to 
be a slave, so far from lessening the guilt of his "owner," aggravates 
it. If slavery has so palsied his mind that he looks upon himself 
as a chattel, and consents to be one, actually to hold him as such, falls 
in with his delusion, and confirms the impious falsehood. These very 
feelings and convictions of the slave, (if such were possible) increase 
a hundred fold the guilt of the master, and call upon him in thunder, 
immediately to recognize him as a man, and thus break the sorcery 



8 

that cheats him out of his birthright — the consciousness of his wortli 
and destiny. 

Many of the foregoing conditions are appendages of slavery, but 
no one, nor all of them together, constitute its intrinsic unchanging 
element. 

Enslaving men is eeducing them to articles of pkoperty — 
making free agents, chattels — converting persons into things — sinking 
immortalir^- into merchandize. A. slave is one held in this condition. 
In law, " he owns nothing, and can acquire nothing." His right to him- 
self is abrogated. If he say my hands, my body, my mind, myself, they are 
figures of speech. To use himself for his own good, is a crime. To 
keep what he earns, is stealing. To take his body into his own keep- 
ing, is insurrection. In a word, the profit of his master is made 
the END of his being, and he, a mere means to that end — a mere 
means to an end into which his interests do not enter, of which they 
constitute no portion.* Man, sunk to a thing! the intrinsic element, 
the principle of slavery ; men, bartered, leased, mortgaged, bequeath- 
ed, invoiced, shipped in cargoes, stored as goods, taken on executions, 
and knocked off at a public outcry ! Their rights, another's conve- 
niences ; their interests, wares on sale ; their happiness, a household 
utensil ; their personal inalienable ownership, a servicable article or 
a plaything, as best suits the humour of the hour; their deathless 
nature, conscience, social affections, sympathies, hopes — marketable 
commodities ! We repeat it, the reduction of persons to things ! 
Not robbing a man of privileges, but of himself; not loading him with 
burdens, but making him a least of burden ; not restraining liberty, but 



♦ To deprive human nature of any of its rights is appression ; to take away 
ihe foundation of its rights is i^avery. In other words, whatever sinks man 
from an end to a mere means, just so far makes him a slave. Hence West- 
India apprentices^hip retained the cardinal principle of slavery. The appren- 
tice, during three-fourths of his time, was forced to labor, and robbed of his 
earnings ; just so far forth he was a mere vteans, a slave. True in other re- 
spects slavery was abolished in the British West Indies August, 1834. Its bloodi- 
est features were blotted otit — but the meanest and most despicable of all — forc- 
ing the poor to work for the rich without pay three fourths of their time, with a 
legal officer to flog them if they demurred at the outrage, was one of the provi- 
sions of the " Emancipation Act!" For the glories of that luminary, abolition- 
ists thanked God, while they mourned that it rose behind clouds and shone 
through an eclipse. 

[West India apprenticeship is now (August 1838) abolished. On the first of 
the present month, every slave in every British island and colony stood up a 
freeman ! — Note to fourth edition.] 



9 

subverting it ; not curtailing rights, but abolishing them ; not inflicting 
personal cruelty, but annihilating personality ; not exacting involuntary 
labor, but sinking man into an imple/mnt of labor ; not abridging 
human comforts, but abrogating human nature ; not deprivmg an ani- 
mal of immunities, but despoiling a rational being of attributes — un- 
creating a man, to make room for a thing ! 

That this is American slavery, is shown by the laws of slave states. 
Judge Stroud, in his " Sketch of the Laws relating to Slavery," says, 
" The cardinal principle of slavery, that the slave is not to be ranked 
among sentient beings, but among things — obtains as undoubted law in 
all of these [the slave] states." The law of South Carolina says, 
" Slaves shall be deemed, held, taken, reputed, and adjudged in law to 
be chattels personal in the hands of their owners and possessors, and 
their executors, administrators, and assigns, to all intents, construc- 
tions, AND PURPOSES WHATSOEVER." Brev. Big., 229. In Louisiana, 
" A slave is one who is in the power of a master to whom he belongs ; 
the master may sell him, dispose of his person, his industry, and his 
labor ; he can do nothing, possess nothing, nor acquire any thing, but 
what must belong to his master." — Civ. Code, Art. 35. 

This is American slavery. The eternal distinction between a per- 
son and a thing, trampled under foot — the crowning distinction of all 
others — alike the source, the test, and the measure of their value — the 
rational, immortal principle, consecrated by God to universal homage 
in a baptism of glory and honor, by the gift of his Son, his Spirit, his 
word, his presence, providence, and power ; his shield, and staff, and 
sheltering wing ; his opening heavens, and angels ministering, and 
chariots of fire, and songs of morning stars, and a great voice in heav- 
en proclaiming eternal sanctions, and confirmmg the word with signs 
following. 

Having stated the principle of American slavery, we ask. Does the 
Bible sanction such a principle ?* " To the law and the testimonv ?" 



* The Bible record of action ^ is no comment on their moral character. It 
vouches for them as facts, not as virtues. It records without rebuke, Noah's 
drunkenness, Lot's incest, and the lies of Jacob and his mother— not only single 
acts, but usages, such as polygamy and concubinage, are entered on the record 
without censure. Is that silent entry God's endorsement 1 Because the Bible 
in its catalogue of human actions, does not stamp on every crime its name and 
number, and write against it, this is a crime — does that wash out its guilt, and 
bleach it into a virtue 1 

2 



10 



THE MORAL LAW AGAINST SLAVERY. 

Just after the Israelites were emancipated from their bondage in 
Egypt, while they stood before Sinai to receive the law, as the trumpet 
waxed louder, and the mount quaked and blazed, God spake the ten 
commandments from the midst of clouds and thunderings. Two of 
those commandments deal death to slavery. " Thotj shalt not steal," 
or, " thou shalt not take from another what belongs to him." All 
man's powers are God's gift to him. Each of them is a part of him- 
self, and all of them together constitute himself. All else that belongs 
to man, is acquired by the use of these powers. The interest belongs 
to him, because the principal does ; the product is his, because he is 
the producer. Ownership of any thing, is ownership of its use. The 
right to use according to will, is itself ownership. The eighth com- 
mandment presupposes and assumes the right of every man to his 
powers, and their product. Slavery robs of both. A man's right to 
himself, is the only right absolutely original and intriasic — his right to 
anything else is merely relative to this, is derived from it, and held 
only by virtue of it. Self-right is the foundation right — the post in 
the middle, to which all other rights are fastened. Slaveholders, when 
talking about their right to their slaves, always assume their own right 
to themselves. What slave-holder ever undertook to prove his right 
to himself? He knows it to be a self-evident proposition, that a man 
belongs to himself — that the right is intrinsic and absolute. In making 
out his own title, he makes out the title of every human being. As the fact 
of being a man is itself the title, the whole human family have one com- 
mon title deed. If one man's title is valid, all are valid. If one is 
worthless, all are. To deny the validity of the slave's title is to deny 
the validity of his own ; and yet in the act of making a man a slave, 
the slaveholder asserts the validity of his own title, while he seizes him 
as his property who has the same title. Further, in making him a 
slave, he does not merely disfranchise of humanity one individual, but 
UNIVERSAL MAN. He destroys the foundations. He annihilates all 
rights. Ho attacks not only the human race, but universal being, and 
rushes upon Jehovah. For rights arc rights ; God's arc no more — 
man's are no less. 

The eighth commandment forbids the taking of atiy pari of that 
which belongs to another. Slavery takes the whole. Does the same 
Bible which prohibits the taking of any thing from him, sanction the 
taking of every thiiig '.' Does it tliunder wrathagainst the man who robs 



11 

his neighbor of a cent, yet commission him to rob his neighbour of 
himself? Slaveholding is the highest possible violation of the eight 
commandment. To take from a man his earnings, is theft. But to 
take the earner, is a compound, life-long theft — supreme robbery that 
vaults up the climax at a lepp — the dread, terrific, giant robbery, that 
towers among other robberies a solitary horror. The eight cominand- 
ment forbids the taking away, and the tenth adds, " Thou shalt not co. 
vet any thing that is thy neighbor's ;" thus guarding every man's right 
to himself and property, by making not only the actual taking away a 
sin, but even that state of mind which would tempt to it. Who ever 
made human beings slaves, without coveting them ? Why take from 
them their time, labor, liberty, right of self-preservation and improve- 
ment, their right to acquire property, to worship according to conscience, 
to search the Scriptures, to live with their families, and their right to 
their own bodies, if they do not desire them? They covet them for 
purposes of gain, convenience, lust of dominion, of sensual gratification, 
of pride and ostentation. They break the tenth commandment, and 
pl'^.ck down upon their heads the plagues that are written in the book. 
Ten commandments constitute the brief compend of human duty. Tjco 
of these brand slavery as sin. 

MANSTEALING— EXAMINATION OF EX. XXI. 16. 

The giving of the law at Sinai, immediately preceded the promul- 
gation of that body of laws called the "Mosaic system." Over the 
gateway of that system, fearful words were written by the finger of 
God — "He that stealeth a man and selleth him, or if he 

BE *F0UND IN HIS HAND, HE SHALL SURELY BE PUT TO DEATH.*" 

Ex. xxi. 16. 

The oppression of the Israelites in Egj^pt, and the wonders wrought 
for their deliverence, proclaim the reason for such alawatsuch a time. 
They had just been emancipated. The tragedies of their house of bond- 
age were the realities of yesterday, and peopled their memories with 



* A writer in the American CLuarterly Review, commenting on this passage, 
thus blasphemes. " On this passage an impression has gone abroad that slave- 
owners are necessarily menstealers; how hastily, any one will perceive who 
consults the passage in its connection. Being found in the chapter which au- 
thorizes this species of property among the Hebrews, it must ol course relate t(> 
iLt full protection from the danger of being enticed away from its rig/itfid owner." 
—Am. auart. Review for June, 1833. Article " Negro slavery." 



12 

thronging horrors. They had just witnessed God's testimony against 
oppression in the plagues of Egypt — the burning blains on man and 
beast ; the dust quickened into loathsome life, and swarming upon eve- 
ry living thing ; the streets, the palaces, the temples, and every house 
heaped up with the carcases of things abhorred ; the kneeding troughs 
and ovens, the secret chambers and the couches, reeking and dissolv- 
ing with the putrid death ; the pestilence walking in darkness at noon- 
day, the devouring locusts, and hail mingled with fire, the first-born 
death-struck, and the waters blood ; and last of all, that dread high hand 
and stretched-out arm, that whelmed the monarch and his hosts, and 
strewed their corpses on the sea. All this their eyes had looked upon ; 
earth's proudest city, wasted and thunder-scarred, lying in desolation, 
and the doom of oppressors traced on her ruins in the hand-writing of 
God, glaring in letters of fire mingled with blood — a blackened monu- 
ment of wrath to the uttermost agdnst the stealers of men. No won- 
der that God, in a code of laws prepared for such a people at such a 
time, should uprear on its foreground a blazing beacon to flash terror 
on slaveholders. " He that stealeth a man and selleth him, or if he be 
found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death." Ex. xxi. 16. Deut. 
xxiv, 7.* God's cherubim and flaming sword guarding the entrance 
to the Mosaic system ! 

The word Gcmdbh here rendered stealeth, means, the taking of what 
belongs to another, whether by violence or fraud ; the same word 
is used in the eight commandment, and prohibits both robbery and 
thefi. 

Th(^ crime specified, is that of depriving somebody of the ownership 
of a man. Is this somebody a master? and is thecrimethat of depriv- 
ing a master of his servant? Then it would have been "he that steal- 
eth" a servant, not " he that stealeth a man.''^ If the crime had been the 
taking of an individual from another, then the term used would have 
been expressive of that relation, and most expecially if it was the re- 
lation of property and proprietor ! 

The crime is stated in a three-fold foi-m — man stealing, selling, and 



* Jarchi, the most eminent of the Jewish Coramen(ators, who wrote seven 
hundred years ago, in his comment on this stealing and making merchandize of 
men, gives the meaning thus: — "Using a man against his will, as a servant 
lawfully purchased; yea, though he should use his services ever so little, only 
to the value of a farthing, or use but his arm to lean on to support him, i/" Ac he 
forced so to act as a servant, the person compelling him but once to do so, shall 
die as a thief, whether he has sold him or not. 



13 

holding. All are put en a level, and whelmed under one penalty — 
DEATH.* This somebody deprived of the ownership of a man, is the 
fnan himself, robbed of personal ownership. Joseph said, " Indeed 1 
was stolen away out of the land of the Hebrews." Gen. xi. 15- 
How stolen ? His brethren sold him as an article of merchandize. 
Contrast this penalty for man-stealing with that for properfy-ste-xYmg, 
Ex. xxii. 14. If a man had stolen an ox and killed or sold it, he was 
to restore five oxen ; if he had neither sold nor killed it, two oxen. 
But in the case of stealing a man, \he first act drew down the utmost 
power of punishment ; however often repeated or aggravated the crime, 
human penalty could do no more. The fact that the penalty for wian-steal- 
ing was death, and the penalty for ^ropert?/-stealing, the mere restoration 
of double, shows that the two cases were adjudicated on totally different 
principles. The man stolen might be diseased or totally past labor, con- 
sequently instead of being profitable to the thief, he would be a tax 
upon him, yet death was still the penalty, though not a cent's worth of 
property-value was taken. The penalty for stealing property was a 
mere property-penalty. However large the theft, the payment of 
double wiped out the score. It might have a greater money value than 
a thousand men, yet death was not the penalty, nor maiming, nor 
brai.ding, nor even stripes, but double of the same kind. Why was 
not the rule uniform 1 When a man was stolen why was not the thief 
required to restore double of the same kind — two men, or if he had 
sold him, five men ? Do you say that the man-thie^ might not have 
them ? So the ox-thief might not have two oxen, or if he had killed it, 
five. But if God permitted men to hold men as property, equally 
with oxen, the man-thief, could get men with whom to pay the penalty, 
as well as the ox-thief, oxen. Further, when property was stolen, the 
legal penalty was a compensation to the person injured. But when 
a man was stolen, no property compensation was offered. To tender 
money as an equivalent, would have been to repeat the outrage with 
intolerable aggravations. Compute the value of a man in money ! 
Throw dust into the bcale against immortality ! The law recoiled 
from such supreme insult and impiety. To have permitted the man- 
thief to expiate his crime by restoring double, would have been making 
the repetition of crime its atonement. But the infliction of death for 
man-stealing exacted the utmost possibility of reparation. It wrung 
from the guilty wretch as he gave up the ghost, the testimony of blood. 



* Those are ?re€ra-rfeakrs who abduct, keep, sell, or buy slaves or freemen." 
Grotius. 



14 

and death-groans, to the infinite dignity and worth of man, — a procla- 
mation to the universe, voiced in mortal agony, "man is inviolable." 
— a confession shrieked in phrenzy at the grave's mouth — " I die ac- 
cursed, and God is just." 

If God permitted man to hold man as property, v^'hy did he punish 
for stealing that khid of property infinitely more than for stealing any 
other kind of property ? Why punish with death for stealing a very 
little of that sort of property, and make a mere fine the penalty for 
stealing a thousand times as much, of any other sort of property — es- 
pecially if by his own act, God had annihilated the diiFerence between 
man and property, by putting him on a level with it ? 

The guilt of a crime, depends much upon the nature, character, and 
condition of the victim. To steal is a crime, whoever the thief, or 
whatever the plunder. To steal bread from a full man, is theft: to 
steal it from a starving man, is both theft and murder. If I steal my 
neighbor's property, the crime coiisists not in altering the nature of the 
article, but in taking as mine what is his. But when I take my neigh- 
bor himself, and first make him property, and then my property, the 
latter act, which was the sole crime in the former case, dwindles to 
nothing. The sin in stealing a man, is not the transfer from its owner 
to another of that which is already property, but the turning of person- 
ality into property. True, the attributes of man remain, but the rights 
and immunities which grow out of them are annihilated. It is the 
first law both of i-eason and revelation, to regard things and beings as 
they are ; and the sum of religion, to feel and act toward them accord- 
ing to their value. Knowingly to treat them otherwise is sin ; and 
the degree of violence done to their nature, relations, and value, mea- 
sures its guilt. When things are sundered which God has indisso- 
lubly joined, or confounded in one, which he has separated by infinite 
extremes ; when sacred and eternal distinctions, which he has garnish, 
ed with glory, are derided and set at nought, then, if ever, sin reddens 
to its " scarlet dye." The sin specified in the passage, is that of 
doing violence to the nature of a man — to his instrinsic wluc as a ra- 
tional being. In the verse preceding the one under consideration, and 
in that which follows, the same principle is laid down. Verse 15, 
" He that smiteth his father or his mother shall surely be put to 
death." Verse. 17, " He that cursethhisfathcr or his mother, shall sure- 
ly be put to death." If a Jew smote his neighbor, the law merely 
smote him in return ; but if the blow was given to a parent, it struck 
the smiter dead. The parental relation is the centre of human society. 
God guards it with peculiar care. Td violate that, is to violate all. 



15 

Whoever tramples on that, shows that no relation has any sacredness 
in his eyes — that he is unfit to move among human relations who vio- 
lates one so sacred and tender. Therefore, the Mosaic law uplifted 
his bleeding corpse, and brandished the ghastly terror around the {)a- 
rental relation to guard it from impious inroads. 

Why such a difference in penalties, for the same act? Answer. 1. 
The relation violated was obvious — the distinction between parents and 
others self-evident, dictated by a law of nature. 2. The act was vio- 
lence to nature — a suicide on constitutional susceptibilities. 3. The 
parental relation then, as now, was the focal point of the social sys- 
tem, and required powerful safe-guards. " Honor thy father and 
thy mother, ^^ stands at the head of those commands which prescribe the 
duties of man to man ; and throughout the Bible, the parental state is 
God's favorite illustration of his own relations to the human family. 
In this case, death was to be inflicted not for smiting a rtmn, but a 
parent — a distinction made sacred by God, and fortified by a bulwark 
of defence. In the next verse, " He that stealeth a man," &c., the 
SAME PRINCIPLE is wrought out in still stronger relief. The crime to 
be punished with death was not the taking of property from its owner, 
but violence lo an immortal nature, the blotting out of a sacred distinc 
tion — making men " chattels." 

The incessant pains taken in the Old Testament to separate human 
beings from brutes and things, shows God's regard for this, his own distinc- 
tion. " In the beginning" he proclaimed it to the universe as it rose 
into being. Creation stood up at the instant of its birth, to do it hom- 
age. It paused in adoration while God ushered forth its <M*owning work. 
Why that dread pause and that creating arm held back in mid career 
and that high conference in the godhead ? " Let us make man in oijr 
image after our likeness, and let him have dominion over the fish of 
the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle and over all 
the earth." Then while every living thing, with land, and sea, and 
firmament, and marshalled worlds, waited to swell the shout of morning 
stars — then God created man in his own image ; in the image of 
God created he him." This solves the problem, IN THE IMAGE 
OF GOD, CREATED HE HIM. This distinction is often repeated 
and always with great solemnity. In Gen. i. 26-28, it is expressed in 
various forms. In Gen. v. 1, we find it again, " in the likeness of 
God made he him." In Gen. ix. 6, again. After giving license to shed 
the blood of " every moving thing that liveth," it is added, "Whoso 
sheddeth mwiUs hlood, by man shall his blood be shed, for in the image of 
God made he man." As though it had been said, " All these creatures 



16 

are your property, designed for your use — they have the likeness of 
earth, and their spirits go downward ; but this other being, man, has 
my own likeness : in the image of God made I man ; an intelligent, 
moral, immortal agent, invited to all that I can give and he can be. So 
in Lev. xxiv. 17, 18, 21, " He that killeth any man shall surely be put 
to death ; and he that killeth a beast shall make it good, beast for beast ; 
and he that killeth a man he shall be put to death." So in Ps. viii. 5. 
6, we have an enumeration of particulars, each separating infinitely 
BiEN from brutes and things I 1. " Thou hast made him a little lower 
than the angels.'''' Slavery drags him down among brutes. 2. " And 
hast crowned him w'lth glory and honor." Slavery tears off his crown, 
und puts on a yoke. 3. " Tliou madest him to have dominion* over the 
wor'tcs of thy hands." Slavery breaks his sceptre, and cast him down 
among those works — yea, beneath them. 4. " Thou hast put all things 
under his feet." Slavery puts him under the feet of an " owner." 
Who, but an impious scorner, dare thus strive with his Maker, and 
mutilate his image, and blaspheme the Holy One, who saith, " Inas- 
much as ye did it unto one of the least of these, ye did it unto me." 

In further prosecuting this inquiry, the Patriarchal and Mosaic sys- 
tems will be considered together, as each reflects light upon the other, 
and as many regulations of the latter are mere legal forms of Divine 
institutions previously existing. As a system, the latter alone is of 
Divine authority. Whatever were the usages of the patriarchs, God 
has not made them our exemplars. "j" The question to be settled by us. 



* " Thou madest him to have dominion." In Gen. i. 28, God says to man, 
"Have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air and over 
every living thing that moveth upon the earth," thus vesting in every human 
being the right of ownership over the earth, its products and animal life, and in 
each human being the .same right. By so doing God prohibited the exercise of 
ownership by man over 7nan ; for the grant to all men of equal ownership, for 
ever shut out the possibility of their exercising ownership over each other, as 
whoever is the owner of a man, is the owner of his right of property — in other 
words, when one man becomes the property of another his rights become such 
too, his right of property is transferred to his ■' owner," and thus as far as himself 
is" concerned, is annihilated. Finally, by originally vesting all men with 
dominion or ownership over property, God proclaimed the right of all to ex- 
ercise it, and pronounced every man who takes it away a robber of the highest 
grade. Such is every slaveholder. 

t Those who insist that the patriarchs held slaves, and sit with such delight 
under their shadow, hymning the praises of "those good old slaveholders and 
patriarchs," might at small cost greatly augment tlicir numbers. A single stanza 
celebrating patriarchal concubinage, winding off with a chorus in honor of pa- 
triarchal drunkenness, would be a trumpet-call, summoning from brothels, bush 



17 

IS not what were Jewish customs, but what were the rules that God gave 
for the regulation of those customs. 

Before entering upon an analysis of the condition of servants under 
these two states of society, we will consider the import of certain terms 
which describe the mode of procuring them. 

IMPORT OF "BUY," AND "BOUGHT WITH MONEY." 

As the Israelites were commanded to " buy " their servants, and as 
Abraham had servants "bought with money," it is argued that servants 
were articles of property ! The sole ground for this belief is the terms 
themselves ! How much might be saved, if in discussion, the thing to 
be proved were always assumed ! To beg the question in debate, is 
vast economy of midnight oil, and a wholesale fbrestaller of 
wrinkles and gray hairs. Instead of protracted investigation into 
Scripture usage, painfully collating passages, to settle the meaning of 
terms, let every man interpret the oldest book in the world by the usag- 
es of his own time and place, and the work is done. And then instead 
of one revelation, they might be multiplied as the drops of the morning, 
and every man have an infallible clue to the mind of the Spirit, in the 
dialect of his own neighborhood ! What a Babel-jargon, to take it for 
granted that the sense in which words are now used, is the inspired 
sense. David says, " I prevented the dawning of the morning, and cried." 
What, stop the earth in its revolution ! Two hundred years ago, pre- 
vent was used in its strict Latin sense, to come before, or anticipate. It 
is always used in this sense in the Old and New Testaments. David's 
expression, in the English of the nineteenth century, would be " Before 
the dawning of the morning I cried." In almost every chapter of the 
Bible, words are used in a sense now nearly, or quite obsolete, and 
sometimes in a sense totally opposite to their present meaning. A few 
examples follow ; "I purposed to come to you, but was let (hindered) 
hitherto." " And the four leasts (living ones) fell down and worship- 
ed God," — " Whosoever shall offend (cause to sin) one of these little 
ones," — " Go out into the highways and compel (urge) them to come 
in," — Only let your conversation (habitual conduct) be as becometh the 
Gospel," — " The Lord Jesus Christ who shall judge the quick (living) 
and the dead," — " They that seek me early (earnestly) shall find nip." 



and brake, highway and hedge, and sheltering fence, a brotherhood of kindred 
affinities, each claiming Abraham or Noah as his patron saint, and shouting, 
" My name is legion," A myriad choir and thunderous song! 
3 



18 

So when tribulation or persecution arisethiy-anfi^-Jy (immediately) they 
are offended." Nothing is more mutable than language. Words, like 
bodies, are always throwing off some particles and absorbing others. 
So long as they are mere representatives, elected by the whims of uni- 
versal suffrage, their meaning will be a perfect volatile, and to cork it 
up for the next century is an employment sufficiently silly (to speak 
within bounds) for a modern Bible-Dictionary maker. There never 
was a shallower conceit than that of establishing the sense attached to 
a word centuries ago, by showing what it means now. Pity that fash- 
ionable mantuamakers were not a httle quicker at taking hints from 
some Doctors of Divinity. How easily they might save their pious 
customers all qualms of conscience about the weekly shiftings of fashion, 
by proving that the last importation of Parisian indecency now " show- 
ing off" on promenade, was the very style of dress in which the modest 
and pious Sarah kneaded cakes for the angels. Since such a fashion 
flaunts along Broadway now, it must have trailed over Canaan four 
thousand years ago ! 

The inference that the word buy, used to describe the procuring of 
servants, means procuring them as chattels, seems based upon the fal- 
lacy, that whatever costs money is money ; that whatever or whoever 
you pay money ybr, is an article of property, and the fact of your pay- 
ing for it, proves it property. 1. The children of Israel were required 
to purchase their first-born from under the obligations of the priest- 
hood. Num. xviii. 15, 16 ; iii. 45 — 51 ; Ex. xiii. 13 ; xxxiv. 20. This 
custom still exists among the Jews, and the word buy is still used to de- 
scribe the transaction. Does this prove that their first-born were, or 
are, held as property 1 They were bought as really as were servants. 
ii. The Israelites were required to pay money for their own so'uls. 
This is called sometimes a ransom, sometimes an atonement. Were 
their souls therefore marketable commodities ? 3. When the Israelites 
set apart themselves or their children to the Lord by vow, for the per- 
formance of some service, an express statute provided that a price 
should be set upon the "persons,^^ and it prescribed the manner and 
terms of the " estimation" or valuation, by the payment of which, the 
persons might be bought off from the service vowed. The price for 
males from one month old to five years, was five shekels, for females, 
three ; from five years old to twenty, for males, twenty shekels, for fe- 
males, ten ; fi'om twenty years old to sixty, for males, fifty shekels, for 
females, thirty ; above sixty years old, for males, fifteen shekels, for fe- 
males, ten, Lev. xxvii. 2 — 8. What egregious folly to contend that all 
these descriptions of persons were goods and chattels because they 



19 

were bought and their prices regulated by law ! 4. Bible saints bought 
their wives. Boaz bought Ruth. " Moreover Ruth the Moabitess, the 
wife of Mahlon, have I purchased (bought) to be my wife." Ruth iv. 
10.* Hosea bought his wife. "So I bought her to me for fifteen 
pieces of silver, and for an homer of Barley, and an half homer of 
barley." Hosea iii. 22. Jacob bought his wives Rachael and Leah, 
and not having money, paid for them in labor — seven years a piece. 
Gen. xxix. 15 — 23. Moses probably bought his wife in the same way, 
and paid for her by his labor, as the servant of her father.f Exod. ii. 
21. Shechem, when negotiating with Jacob and his sons for Dinah, 
says, " Ask me never so much dowry and gift, and I will give accord, 
ing as ye shall say unto me-" Gen. xxxiv. 11, 12. David purchased 
Michael, and Othniel, Achsah, by performing perilous services for the 
fathers of the damsels. 1 Sam. xviii. 25-27 ; Judg. i. 12, 13. That 
the purchase of wives, either with money or by service, was the gene- 
ral practice, is plain from such passages as Ex. xxii. 17, and 1 Sam. 
xviii. 25. Among the modern Jews this usage exists, though now a 
mere form, there being no real purchase. Yet among their marriage 
ceremonies, is one called " marrying by the penny." The similiarity 
in the methods of procuring wives and servants, in the terms employed 
in describing the transactions, and in the prices paid for eacii, ;u-e 
worthy of notice. The highest price of wives (virgins) and servants 
was the same. Comp. Deut, xxii. 28, 29, and Ex. xxii. 17, with Lev. 
xxvii. 2-8. The medium price of wives and servants was the same. 
Comp. Hos. iii. 2, with Ex. xxi. 32. Hosea seems to have paid one 
half in money and the other half in grain. Further, ihe Israelitish 
female bought-servants were wives, their husbands and masters being 
the same persons. Ex. xxi. 8, Judg. xix. 3, 27. If buying servants 
proves them property, buying wives proves the7n property. Why not 
contend that the wives of the ancient fathers of the faithful were their 
" chattels," and used as ready change at a pinch ; and thence deduce 



* In the verse preceding, Boaz says, " I have bought all that was Elimelech's_ 
* * * of the hand of Naomi." In the original, the same word (kana) is 
used in both verses. In the 9th, " a parcel of land" i.s '' bought," in the 10th a 
" wife" is " bought." If the Israelites had been as profound at inferences as 
our modern Commentators, they would have put such a fact as this to the 
rack till they had tortured out of it a divine warrant for holding their wives 
as property and speculating in the article whenever it happened to be scarce. 

t This custom still prevails in some eastern countries. The Crim Tartars, 
who are poor, serve an apprenticeship for their wives, during which they live 
under the same roof with them and atthe close of it are adopted into the family. 



20 

the rights of modern husbands ? Alas ! Patriarchs and prophets are 
followed afar off! When will pious husbands live up to their Bible 
privileges, and become partakers with Old Testament worthies in the 
blessedness of a husband's rightful immunities ! Refusing so to do, is 
questioning the morality of those " good old slaveholders and patriarchs, 
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob." 

This use of the word buy, is not peculiar to the Hebrew. In the 
Syriac, the common expression for "the espoused," is "the bought." 
Even so late as the 16th century, the common record of marriages in 
the old Gei'man Chronicles was, " A bought B." 

The word translated buy, is, like other words, modified by the nature 
of the subject to which it is applied. Eve said, " I have gotten (bought) 
a man from the Lord." She named him Cain, that is bought. " He 
that heareth reproof, getteth (buyeth) understanding," Prov. xv. 32. 
So in Isa. xi. 11. " The Lord shall set his hand again to recover (to 
buy) the remnant of his people " So Ps. Ixxviii. 54. " He brought 
them to his mountain which his right hand had purchased,^^ (gotten.) 
Neh. V. 8. " We of our ability have redeemed (bought) our brethren 
the Jews, that were sold unto the heathen." Here ^' bought" is not 
applied to persons reduced to servitude, but to those taken out of it. 
Prov. viii. 22. " The Lord possessed (bought) me in the beginning of 
his way." Prov. xix. 8. " He that getteth (buyeth) wisdom loveth 
his own soul." • Finally, to buy is a secondary meaning of the Hebrew 
word kdnd. 

Even at this day the word buy is used to describe the procuring of 
servants, where slavery is abolished. In the British West Indies, 
where slaves became apprentices in 1834, they are still, (1837,) 
"bought." This is the current word in West India newspapers. Ten 
years since servants were " bought" in New York, and still are in New 
Jersey, as really as in Virginia, yet the different senses in which the 
word is used in these states, puts no man in a quandary. Under the 
system of legal indenture in Illinois, servants now are " bought."* 
Until recently immigrants to this country were " bought" in great 
nunibcrs. By voluntary contract they engaged to work a given time 
to pay for thcnr passage. This class of persons, called " redemptioners," 



* The following statute is nov in force in the free state of Illinois — " No ne- 
gro, mulatto, or Indian, shall at any time purchase any servant other than of 
their own comple.xion : and if any of the persons aforesaid shall presume to 
purchase a white servant, such servant shall immediately become free, and shall 
be so held, deemed and taken." 



21 

consisted at one time of thousands. Multitudes are " bought" out of 
slavery by themselves or others. Under the same roof with the writer 
is a "servant bought with money." A few weeks since, she was a 
slave ; when " bought," she was a slave no longer. Alas ! for our 
leading politicians if " buying" men makes ihem " chattels." The 
Whigs say, that Calhoun has been " bought" by the administration ; " 
and the other party, that Clay and Webster have been " bought" by 
the Bank. The histories of the revolution tell us that Benedict Arnold 
was " bought" by British gold, and that WiUiams, Paulding, and Van 
Wert, could not be " bought" by Major Andre. When a northern 
clergyman marries a rich southern widow, countiy gossip thus hits oif 
the indecency, " The cotton bags bought him." Sir Robert Walpole 
said, " Every man has his price, and whoever will pay it, can buy him," 
and John Randolph said, " The northern delegation is in the market ; 
give me money enough, and I can buy them." The temperance pub- 
lications tell us that candidates for office buy men with whiskey ; and 
the oracles of street tattle, that the court, district attorney, and jury, 
in the late trial of Robinson were bought, yet we have no floating 
visions of " chattels personal," man-auctions, or coflles. 

In Connecticut, town paupers are "bought" by individuals, who, for 
a stipulated sum become responsible to the town for their comfortable 
support for one year. If these " bought" persons perform any labor 
for those who " buy" them, it is wholly voluntary. It is hardly neces- 
sary to add that they are in no sense the " proper cy" of their pur- 
chasers.* 

The transaction between Joseph and the Egyptians gives a clue to 
the use of "buy" and " bought with money." Gen. xlvii. 18 — 26. 
The Egyptians proposed to Joseph to become servants. When the 
bargain was closed, Joseph said, " Behold I have bought you this day," 
and yet it is plain that neither party regarded the persons bought as 
articles of property, but merely as bound to labor on certain condi- 
tions, to pay for their support during the famine. The idea attached 



♦ " The select-men" of each town annually give notice, that at such a time and 
place, they will proceed to sell the poor of said town. The persons thus " sold" 
are "bought" by such persons, approved by the "select-men," as engage to fur- 
nish them with sufficient wholesome food, adequate clothing, shelter, medicine, 
&c., for such a sum as the parties may agreeupon. The Connecticut papers fre- 
quently contain advertisements like the following : 

"NOTICE— The poor of the town of Chatham will be SOLD on the first 
Monday in April, 1837, at the house of F. Penfield, Esq., at 9 o'clock in the 
forenoon." — [Middletown Sentinel, Feb. 3, 1837. 



22 

by both parties to "buy us," and "behold I have bought you," was 
merely that of service voluntarily offered, and secured by contract, in 
return, for value received, and not at all that the Egyptians were bereft 
of their personal ownership, and made articles of property. And this 
buying of services (in this case it was but one-fifth part) is called in 
Scripture usage, buying the persons. This case claims special notice, 
as it is the only one where the whole transaction of buying servants is 
detailed — the preliminaries, the process, the mutual acquiescence, and 
the permanent relation resulting therefrom. In all other instances, the 
mere fact is stated without particulars. In this case, the whole process 
is laid open. 1. The persons "bought," sold themselves, and of their 
own accord. 2. Paying for the permanent service of persons, or even a 
portion of it, is called " buying " those persons ; just as paying for the 
use of land or houses for a number of years in succession is called 
in Scripture usage buying them. See Lev. xxv. 28, 33, and xxvii. 24. 
The objector, at the outset, takes it for granted, that servants were 
bought of third persons ; and thence infers that they were articles of 
property. Both the alleged fact and the inference are sheer as- 
sumptions. No instance is recorded, under the Mosaic system, in 
which a master sold his servant. 

That servants who were " bought," sold themselves, is a fair infer- 
ence from various passages of Scripture.* In Leviticus xxv. 47, the 

* Those who insist that the servants which the Israelites were commanded to 
buy of "the heathen which were round about" them, were to be bought oUhird per- 
sons, virtually charge God with the inconsistency of recognizing and affirming 
the right of those very persons to freedom, upon whom, say they, he pronoimced 
the doom of slavery. For they tell us, that the sentence of death uttered against 
those heathen was commuted into slavery, which punishment God denounced 
against them. Now if " the heathen round about" were doomed to slavery, the 
sellers were doomed as well as the sold. Where, we ask, did the sellers get their 
right to sell 1 God by commanding the Israelites to but, affirmed the right of 
so'/ncbody to sell, and that the ownership of what was sold existed somexchere ; which 
right and ownership he commanded them to recognize and respect. We repeat 
the question, where did the heathen sellers get their right to sell, since Ikci/ were 
dispossessed of their right to themselves, and doomed toslavery equally with those 
whom they sold. Did God's decree vest in them a right to others while it an- 
nulled their right to themselves ? If, as the objector's argument assumes, one pari 
of" the heathen round about" were rti/f«<v held as slaves by the other part, such 
of course were not doonmd to slavery, for they were already slaves. So also, if 
those heathen who held them as slaves had a right to hold them, which right 
God commanded tlie Israelites to hny out, thus requiring them to recognize it 
as a rigid, and on no account to procure its transfer tothemselves without paying 
to the holders an equivalent, surely, these slaveholders were not doomed by God 
to be slaves, for according to the objector, God had himself affirni' d their right j 
to /lold others asdaiies, and commanded his people to respect it. 



23 

case of the Israelite, who became the servant of the stranger, the 
words are, " If he sell himself unto the stranger." Yet the 51st 
verse informs us that this servant was "bought" and that the 
price of his purcheise was paid to himself. The same word, and the 
same form of the word, which, in verse 47, is rendered sell himself, is 
in verse 39 of the same chapter, rendered be sold ; in Deut. xxviii. 68, 
the same word is rendered " be sold." " And there ye shall be sold 
unto your enemies for bond-men and bond- women and no man shall 
BUY YOU." How could they " be soZc^" without being boughtl Our 
translation makes it nonsense. The word Makar rendered " be sold^' 
is used here in Hithpael conjugation, which is generally reflexive in 
its force, and like the middle voice in Greek, represents what an indi- 
vidual does for himself, and should manifestly have been i-endered " ye 
shall offer yourselves for sale, and there shall be no purchaser." For 
a clue to Scripture usage on this point, see 1 Kings xxi. 20. 25. — 
" Thou hast sold thyself to work evil. " There was none hke unto 
Ahab which did sell himself to work wickedness." — 2 Kings xvii. 17. 
" They used divination and enchantments, and sold themselves to do 
evil." — Isa. 1. 1. "For your iniquities have ye sold yourselves." 
Isa. Hi. 3, " Ye have sold yourselves for nought, and ye shall be re- 
deemed without money." See also, Jer. xxxiv. 14 ; Rom. vii. 14, vi. 
16 ; John, viii. 34, and the case of Joseph and the Egyptians, already 
quoted. In the purchase of wives, though spoken of rarely, it is gene- 
rally stated that they were bought of third persons. If servants were 
bought of third persons, it is strange that no instance of it is on 
record. 

We now proceed to inquire into the condition of servants under the 
patriarchal and Mosaic systems. 

I. THE RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES OF SERVANTS. 

The leading design of the laws defining the relations of master and 
servant, was the good of both parties — more especially the good of the 
servants. While the master's interests were guarded from injury, 
those of the servants were promoted. These laws made a merciful 
provision for the poorer classes, both of the Israelites and Strangers, 
not laying on burdens, but lightening them — they were a grant of 
privileges and favors. 

I. Buying servants was regarded as a kindness to the per- 
sons bought, and as establishing between them and their purchasers 
a bond of affection and confidence. This is plain from the frequent 



24 

use of it to illustrate the love and care of God for his chosen people. 
Deut. xxxii. 6 ; Ex. xv. 16 ; Ps. Ixxiv. 2 ; Prov. viii. 22. 

II. No Stuanger could join the family of an Israelite with- 
out BECOMING a proselyte. Compliance with this condition was the 
price of the privilege. Gen. xvii. 9 — 14, 23, 27. In other words, to 
become a servant was virtually to become an Israelite.* In the light 
of this fact, look at the relation sustained by a proselyted servant to 
his master. Was it a sentence consigning to punishment, or a ticket 
of admission to privileges ? 

in. Expulsion from the family was the deprivation of a privi- 
lege IF not a punishment. When Sarah took umbrage at the con- 
duct of Hagar and Ishmael, her servants, " She said unto Abraham 
cast out this bond-woman and her son." * * And Abraham rose 
up early in the morning and took bread and a bottle of water and gave 
it unto Hagar and the child, and sent her away. Gen. xxi. 10, 14; 
in Luke xvi. 1—8, our Lord tells us of the steward or head-servant of 
a rich man" who defrauded his master, and was, in consequence, ex- 
eluded from his household. The servant anticipating such a punish- 
ment, says, " I am resolved what to do, that when I am put out of the 
stewardship, they may receive me into their houses." The case of 
Gehazi, the servant of Elisha, appears to be a similar one. He was 
guilty of fraud in procuring a large sum of money from Naaman, and 
of deliberate lying to his master, on account of which Elisha seems 
to have discarded him. 2 Kings v. 20—27. In this connection we 
may add that if a servant neglected the observance of any ceremonial 
rite, and was on that account excommunicated from the congregation 
of Israel, such excommunication excluded hun also from the fa7ni/if 
of an Israelite. In other words he could be a servant no longer 
than he was an Israelite. To forfeit the latter distinction ii:Volved the 
forfeiture of the former pnm/e^e — which proves that it M.m a privilege. 
IV. The Hebrew servant could compel his master to keep him. 



* The ri'es by which a stranger became a proselyte transformed him into a 
Jew. Compare 1 Chron. ii. 17, with '2 Sam. xvii 25. In Esthei viii. 17, it is 
said " Many of the people of the land became Jews." In the Sepluagint, the pas- 
sage is thus rendered, "Many of the heathen were circumcised and became 
Jews " The intimate union an.', incorporation of the proselytes with the He- 
brews is shown by such passages as Isa. Ivi. G, 7, 8 ; Eph. ii. 11, 22; Num. x.29- 
32 Calmet, Art. Proselyte, says " They were admitted to all the prerogatives 
of the people of the Lord." Mahommed doubtless borrowed from the laws and 
usages of the Jews, his well known regulation for admitting to all civil and re- 
ligious privileges, all proselytes of whatever nation or religion. 



25 

When the six years' contract had expired, if the servant demanded it, 
the law obliged the master to retain him permanently, however little 
he might need his services. Deut. xv. 12 — 17 ; Ex. xxi. 2 — 6. 
This shows that the system was framed to advance the interest and 
gratify the wishes of the servant quite as much as those of the 
master. 

V. Servants were admitted into covenant with God. Deut. 
xxix. 10—13. 

VI. They were guests at all national and family festivals 
Ex. xii. 43—44; Deut xii. 12, 18, xvi. 10—16. 

VII. They were statedly instructed in morality and religion. 
Deut. xxxi. 10 — 13 ; Josh. viii. 33 — 35 ; 2 Chron. xvii. 8 — 9, xxxv. 
3, and xxxiv. 30. Neh. viii. 7. 8. 

VIII. They were released from their regular labor nearly 
ONE half of the WHOLE TIME. During which they had their entire 
support, and the same instruction that was provided for the other mem- 
hers of the Hebrew community. The Law secured to them, 

1. Every seventh year ; Lev. xxv. 3 — 6 ; thus giving to those who 
were servants during the entire period between the jubilees, eight 
whole years, (including the jubilee year,) of unbroken rest. 

2. Every seventh day. This in forty-two years, the eight being 
subtracted from the fifty, would amount to just six years. 

3. The three annual festivals. Ex. xxiii. 17, xxxiv. 23. The Pass- 
over, which commenced on the 15th of the 1st month, and lasted seven 
days, Deut. xvi. 3, 8. The Pentecost, or Feast of Weeks, which 
began on the 6th day of the 3d month, and lasted seven days. Deut. 
xvi. 10, 11. The Feast of Tabernacles, which commenced on the 
15th of the 7th month, and lasted eight days. Deut. xvi 13. 15 ; Lev. 
xxiii. 34 — 39. As all met in one place, much time would be spent on 
the journey. Cumbered caravans move slowly. After their arrival, 
a day or two would be requisite for divers preparations before the 
celebration, besides some time at the close of it, in preparations for re- 
turn. If we assign three weeks to each festival — including the time 
spent on the journeys, and the delays before and after the celebration, 
together with the festival loeek, it will be a small allowance for the 
cessation of their regular labor. As there were three festivals in the 
year, the main body of the servants would be absent from their stated 
employments at least nine weeks annually, which would amount in 
forty-two years, subtracting the sabbaths, to six years and eighty-four 

days. 

4. The new moms. The Jewish year had twelve ; Josephus says 

4 



26 

that the Jews always kept two days for the new moon. See Calmet 
on the Jewish Calendar, and Home's Introduction ; also 1 Sam. xx. 
18, 19, 27. This, in forty-two years, would be two years 280 
days. 

.5. The feast of trumpets. On the first day of the seventh month, 
and of the civil year. Lev. xxiii. 24, 25. 

6. The atonement day. On the tenth of the seventh month Lev. 
xxiii. 27. 

These two feasts would consume not less than sixty-five days not 
reckoned above. 

Thus it appears that those who continued servants during the peri- 
od between the jubilees, were by law released from their labor, twen- 
ty-three YEARS AND SIXTY-FOUR DAYS, OUT OF FIFTY YEARS, and those 

who remained a less time, in nearly the same proportion. In this cal- 
culation, besides making a donation of all X\\c fractions to the objector, 
we have left out those numerous local festivals to which frequent allu- 
sion is made, Judg. xxi. 19; 1 Sam. ix 12. 22. etc., and the various 
family festivals, such as at the weaning of children ; at marriages ; at 
sheep shearings ; at circumcisions ; at the making of covenants, &c., 
to which reference is often made, as in 1 Sam, xx. 6. 28, 29. Nei- 
ther have we included the festivals instituted at a later period of the 
Jewish history — the feast of Purim, Esth. ix. 28, 29 ; and of the 
Dedication, which lasted eight days. John x. 22 ; 1 Mac. iv. 59. 

Finally, the Mosaic system secured to servants, an amount of time 
which, if distributed, would be almost one half of the days in each 
YEAR. Meanwhile, they were supported, and furnished with opportu- 
nities of instruction. If this time were distributed over every day, the 
iervants would have to themselves nearly one half of each day. 

The service of those Strangers who were national servants or trib- 
utaries, was regulated upon the same benevolent principle, and secured 
to them two-thirds of the whole year. "A month they were in 
Lebanon, and two months they were at home." 1 Kings, v. 13 — 15. 
Compared with 2 Chron. 11. 17 — 19, viii. 7 — 9; 1 Kings, ix 20. 22. 
The regulations under which the inhabitants of Gibeon, Chephirah, 
Beeroth and Kirjath-jearim, (afterwards called Neihinims) performed 
service for the Israelites, must have secured to them nearly the whole of 
their time. If, as is probable, they served in courses corresponding 
to those of their priests whom they assisted, they were in actual ser- 
vice less than one month annually. 

IX. The servant was protected by law equally with the 
other members of the community. 



27 

Proof. — "Judge righteously between every man and his brother 

and THE STRANGER THAT IS WITH HIM " " Ye shall not RESPECT PER- 

SONS in judgment, but ye shall hear the small as well as the great." 
Deut. i. 16, 19. Also Lev. xix. 15. xxiv. 22. "Ye shall have one 
manner of law as well for the stranger, as for one of your own coun- 
try." So Num. XV. 29. " Ye shall have one law for him that sinncth 
through ignorance, both for him that is born among the children of 
Israel and for the stranger that sojourneth among them." Deut. 
xxvii. 19. "Cursed be he that perverteth the judgment of the 
stranger."* Deut. xxvii. 19. 

X. The Mosaic system enjoined the greatest affection and 

KINDNESS TOWARDS SERVANTS, FOREIGN AS WELL AS JeWISH. 

" The stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born 
among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself." Lev. xix. 34. 
*' For the Lord your God * * regardeth not persons. He doth 
execute the judgment of the fatherless and widow, and loveth the 
stranger, m giving him food and raiment, love ye therkfore the 
STRANGER." Dcut. X. 17, 19. " Tliou shalt neither vex a stranger 
nor oppress him," Ex. xxii. 21. "Thou shalt not oppress a 
stranger, for ye know the heart of a stranger." Ex. xxiii. 9. 
" If thy brother be waxen poor thou shalt relieve him, yea, though he 
be a stranger or a sojourner, that he may live with thee, take thou nu 
usury of him or increase, but fear thy God. Lev. xxv. 35, 36. 
Could this same stranger be taken by one that feared his God, and 
held as a slave, and robbed of time, earnings, and all his rights? 

XI. Servants were placed upon a level with their masters in 
all civil and religious eights. Num. xv. 15, 16, 29 ; ix. 14 ; 
Deut. i. 16, 17 ; Lev. xxiv. 22. To these may be added that nume- 
rous class of passages which represents God as regarding alike the na- 
tural rights of all men, and making for all an equal provision. Such 



* In a work entitled, " Instruction in the Mosaic Religion" by Professor 
Jholson, of the Jewish seminary at Frankfort-on-the-Main, translated into Eng- 
lish by Rabbi Leeser, we find the following. — Sec. 1G5, 

" Cluestion. Does holy writ any where make a difference between the Israel- 
ite and the other who is no Israelite, in those laws and prohibitions which for- 
bid us the committal of amj thing against our fellow vien ?" 

" Answer. No where we do find a trace of such a difference. See Lev. xix. 
33— :i6. 

" God says thou shalt not murder, steal, cheat, &c. In ev^ery place the action 
itself is prohibited as being an abomination to God without respect to the persons 
against whom it is committed." 



28 

as, 2 Chron, xix. 7 ; Prov. xxiv. 23, xxviii. 21; Job. xxxiv. 19, 
2 Sam. xiv. 14 ; Acts x. 35 ; Eph. vi. 9. 

Finally — With such watchful jealousy did the Mosaic Institutes 
guard the rights of servants, as to make the mere fact of a servant's 
escape from his master presumptive evidence that his master had op. 
■pressed him ; and on that presumption, annulled his master's authority 
over him, gave him hcense to go wherever he pleased, and commanded 
all to protect him. Deut. xxiii. 15, 16. As this regulation will be ex- 
amiiied uuder a subsequent head, where its full discussion more appro- 
priately belongs, we notice it here merely to point out its bearings on 
the topic under consideration. 

These are regulations of that Mosaic system which is claim- 
ed BY slaveholders AS THE PROTOTYPE OF AMERICAN SLAVERY. 

11. WERE PERSONS MADE SERVANTS AGAINST 
THEIR WILLS ? 

We argue that they became servants of their own accord, because, 

I. To BECOME A SERVANT WAS TO BECOME A PROSELYTE. WhoCVer 

of the strangers became a servant, he was required to abjure idolatry, 
to enter into covenant with God,* be circumcised in token of it, be 
bound to keep the Sabbath, the Passover, the Pentecost, and the Feast 



* Maimonides, a contemporary with Jarchi, and who stands with him at the 
head of Jewish writers, gives the following testimony on this point : 

" Whether a servant be born in the power of an Israelite, or whether he be 
purchased from the heathen, the master is to bring them both into the covenant. 

'■ But he that is in the house is entered on the eighth day, and he that is 
bought with money, on the day on which his master receives him, unless the 
slave be unwilling. For if the master receive a grown slave, and he be unwil- 
ling, his master is to bear with him, to seek to win him over by instruction, 
and by love and kindness, for one year. After which, should he refuse so long, 
it is forbidden to keep him longer than a year. And the master must send him 
back to the strangers from whence he came. For the God of Jacob will not ac- 
cept any other than the worship oi a. willing heart."— Maimon. Hilcolh Miloth, 
Chap. 1, Sec. 8. 

The ancient Jewish Doctors assert that the servant from the Strangers who at 
the close of his probationary year, refused to adopt the Jewish religion and was 
on that account sent back to his own people, received a full compensation for his 
services, besides the payment of his expenses. But that postponement of the cir- 
cumcision of the foreign servant for a year {or even at all after he had entered 
the family of an Israelite) of which the Mishnic doctors speak, seems to have been 
a mere usage. We fu.d nothing of it in the regulations of the Mo.saic system. 
Circumcision was manifestly a rite strictly initiatory. "Whether it was a rite 
merely national or spiritual, or both, comes not within the scope of this inquiry. 



29 

of Tabernacles, and to receive instruction in the moral and ceremonial 
law. Were the servants ybrced through all these processes? Was 
the renunciation of idolatry compulsory? Were they dragged into 
covenant with God 1 Were they seized and circumscised by main 
strength 1 Were they compelled mechanically to chew and swallow 
the flesh of the Paschal lamb, wliile they abhorred the institution, 
spurned the laws that enjoined it, detested its author and its execu- 
tors, and instead of rejoicing in the deliverance which it commemorated, 
bewailed it as a calamity, and rursed the day of its consummation ? 
Were they driven from all parts of the land three times in the year to 
tile annual festivals ? Were they drugged with instruction which they 
nauseated ? Were they goaded through a round of ceremonies, to 
them senseless and disgusting mummeries ; and drilled into the tactics 
of a creed rank with loathed abominations ? We repeat it, to be- 
come a servant, was to become a proselyte. Did God authorize his 
people to make proselytes at the point of the bayonet ? by the terror of 
pains and penalties ? by converting men into merchandise ? Were pro 
selyte and chattel synonymes in the Divine vocabulary ? Must a man 
be sunk to a thing before taken into covenant with God ? Was this 
the stipulated condition of adoption ? the sure and sacred passport to 
the communion of the saints ? 

II. The surrender of fugitive servants to their masters 
WAS PROHIBITED. " Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the ser- 
vant which is escaped from his master unto thee. Ho shall dwell witli 
thee, even among you, in that place which he shall choose, in one of 
thy gates where itlikethhim best ; thou shalt not oppress him." Deut. 
xxiii. 15, 16. 

As though God had said, " To deliver him up would be to recognize 
the ri^/ii of the master to hold him ; his ^eemg' shows his choice, pro- 
claims his wrongs and his title to protection ; you shall not force him 
back and thus recognize the right of the master to hold him in such 
a condition as induces him to flee to others for protection." It may 
be said that this command referred only to the serveints of heathen 
masters in the surrounding nations. We answer : the terms of the 
command are unlimited. But the objection, if valid, would merely 
shift the pressure of the difiiculty to another point. Did God re- 
quire them to protect the free choice of a single servant from the hea- 
then, and yet authorize the same persons, to crush the free choice of 
tliousands of servants from the heathen? Suppose a case, k foreign 
servant escapes to the Israelites; God says, "He shall dwell with 
thee, in that place which he skill choose, in one of tliy gates where it 



30 

likeih him best." Now, suppose this same servant, instead of coming 
into Israel of his own accord, had been dragged in by some kidnapper, 
who bought him of his master, and forced him into a condition 
against his will ; would He who forbade such treatment of the strang- 
er, who voluntarily came into the land, sanction the same treatment 
of the same person, provided in addition to this last outrage, the 
previous one had been committed of forcing him into the nation 
against his will ? To commit violence on the free choice of a foreign 
servant is forsooth a horrible enormity, provided you begin the vio- 
lence after he has come among you. But if you commit the first act 
an the other side of the line ; if you begin the outrage by buying him 
from a third person against his will, and then tear him from home, 
drag him across the line into the land of Israel, and hold him as a 
slave — ah! that alters the case, and you may perpetrate the violence 
now with impunity ! Would greater favor have been shown to this 
new comer than to the old residents — those who had been servants in 
Jewish families perhaps for a generation ? Were the Israelites com- 
manded to exercise towards Mm, uncircumcised and out of the cove- 
nant, a justice and kindness denied to the multitudes who were cir- 
cumcised, and within the covenant ? But, the objector finds small 
gain to his argument on the supposition that the covenant respected 
merely the fugitives from the surrounding nations, while it left the 
servants of the Iraelites in a condition against their wills. In that 
case, the surrounding nations would adopt retaliatory measures, and 
become so many asylums for Jewish fugitives. As these nations 
were not only on every side of them, but in their midst, such a 
proclamation would have been an effectual lure to men whose condi- 
tion was a constant counteraction of will. Besides, the same command 
which protected the servant from the power of his foreign master, 
protected him equally from the power of an Israelite. It was not, 
raerely " Thou shalt not deliver him unto his master," but '• he shall 
t.l'.vcU with thee, in that place which he shall choose in one of thy gates 
where it liketh him best." Every Israelite was forbidden to put him 
in any condition against his will. ^Vhat was this but a proclamation, 
that all who chose to live in the land and obey the laws, were left to 
their own free will, to dispose of their services at such a rate, to such 
persons, and in such places as they pleased? Besides, grant that this 
command prohibited the sending back of foreign servants only, there 
was no law requiring the return of servants who had escaped from 
the Israelites. Property lost, and cattle escaped, they were required 
to return, but not escaped servants. Those verses contain. 1st, acorn- 



31 

mand, " Thou shalt not deliver," &c., 2d, a declaration of the fiigi. 
tive's right of/ree choice, and of God's will that he should exercise it 
at his own discretion ; and 3d, a command guardmg this right, namely, 
"Thou shalt not oppress him," as though God had said, "If you re- 
strain him from exercising his own choice, as to the place and condition 
of his residence, it is oppression, and shall not be tolerated."* , 

III. The servants had peculiar opportunities and facilities for 
ESCAPE. Three times every year, all the males over twelve years, 
were required to attend the national feasts. They were thus absent 
from their homes not less than three weeks at each time, making nine 
weeks annually. As these caravans moved over the country, were 
there military scouts lining the way, to intercept deserters ? — a oorpo- 
ral's guard at each pass of the mountains, sentinels pacing the hill- 
tops, and light-horse scouring the defiles ? The Israelites must have 
had some safe contrivance for taking their " slaves" three times in a 
year to Jerusalem and back. When a body of slaves is moved any 
distance in our republic, they are handcuffed and chained together, to 
keep them from running away, or beating their drivers' brains out. 
Was this the Mosaic plan, or an improvement introduced by Samuel, 
or was it left for the wisdom of Solomon? The usage, doubtless, 
claims a paternity not less venerable and biblical ! Perhaps they were 
lashed upon camels, and transported in bundles, or caged up and trun. 
died on wheels to and fro, and while at the Holy City, " lodged in jail 
for safe keeping," the Sanhedrim appointing special religious services 
for their benefit, and their "drivers " officiating at "oral instruction." 
Meanwhile, what became of the sturdy handmaids left at home ? What 
hindred them from stalking ofF in a body ? Perhaps the Israelitish 
matrons stood sentry in rotation round the kitchens, while the young 
ladies scoured the country, as mounted rangers, picking up stragglers 
by day, and patrolled the streets, keeping a sharp look-out at night ! 



* Perhaps it may be objected that this view of Deut. xxiii. 15, 16, makes non- 
sense of Ex. xxi. 27, which provides that if a man .strikes out his servant's tooth 
he shall let him go free. Small favor indeed if the .servant might set himself 
free whenever he pleased ! Answer— The former passage might remove the 
servant from the masler's authoritij, without annulling the master's legal claims 
upon the servant, if he had paid him in advance and had not received from him 
an equivalent, and this equally, whether his master were a Jew or a Gentile. 
The latter passage, " He shall let him go free for Ms fooi/i's sake," not only freed 
the servant from the master's authority, but also from any pecuniary claim which 
the master might have on account of having paid his wages in advance ; and this 
as a compensation for the loss of a tooth. 



32 

IV. Wilful neglect of ceremonial rites dissolved the rela- 



TION. 



Suppose the servants from the heathen had, upon entering Jewish 
families, refused circumcision ; if slaves, how simple the process of 
emancipation ! Their refusal did the job. Or, suppose they had re- 
fused to attend the annual feasts, or had eaten leavened bread during 
the Passover, or compounded the ingredients of the annointing oil, or 
had touched a dead body, a bone, or a grave, or in any way had con- 
tracted ceremonial uncleanness, and refused to be cleansed with the 
" water of separation," they would have been " cut off from the peo- 
pie ;" excommunicated. Ex. xii. 19 ; xxx. 33 ; Num. xix. 16. 

V. Servants of the patriarchs necessarily voluntary. 
Abraham's servants are an illustration. At one time he had three 
hundred and eighteen young men "born in his house," and many more 
not born in his house. His servants of all ages were probably many 
THOUSANDS. How did Abraham and Sarah contrive to hold fast so 
many thousand servants against their wills? The most natural sup- 
position is that the Patriarch and his wife "took turns" in surrounding 
them! The neighboring tribes, instead of constituting a picket 
guard to hem in his servants, would have been far more likely to 
sweep them and him into captivity, as they did Lot and his household. 
Besides, there was neither "constitution" nor "compact," to send 
back Abraham's fugitives, nor a truclding police to pounce upon them, 
nor gentlemen-kidnappers, suing for his patronage, volunteering to 
howl on their track, boasting their blood-hound scent, and pledging 
their honour to hunt down and deliver up, provided they had a descrip- 
tion of the " flesh-marks," and were suitably stimulated by pieces of 
silver * Abraham seems also to have been sadly deficient in all the 



* The following is a standing newspaper advertisement of one of these pro- 
fessional man-catchers, a member of the New York bar, who coolly plies his 
trade in the commercial emporium, sustained by the complacent greetings and 
courtesies of " honokabi.e mf.n !" 

. " Important to thk South.-F. H. Pettis, native of Orange County, Va., 
being located in the city of New York, in the practice of law, announces lo his 
friends and the public in general, that he has been engaged as Counsel and Ad- 
viser in General for a party whose business it is in the northern cities to arrest 
and secure runaway slaves. He has been thus engaged for several years, and 
as the act of Congress alone governs now in this city, in business of this sort, 
which renders it easy for the recovery of such property, he invites post paid com- 
munications to himi inclosing a fee of 8^0 in each case, and a power of Attor- 



83 

auxiliaries of family government, such as stocks, hand-cuffs, foot-chains, 
yokes, gags, and thumb-screws. His destitution of these patriarchal 
indispensables is the more afflicting, since he faithfully trained •' his 
household to do justice and judgment," though so deplorably destitute 
of the needful aids. 

Probably Job had even more servants than Abraham. See Job. i. 3, 
14-19, and xlii. 12. That his thousands of servants staid with him 
entirely of their OM^n accord, is proved by the fact of their staying with 
him. Suppose they had wished to quit his service, and so the whole 
army had filed off before him in full retreat, how could the patriarch 
have brought them to halt ? Doubtless with his wife, seven sons, and 
three daughters for allies, -he would have soon out- flanked the fugitive 
host and dragged each of them back to his wonted chain and staple. 

But the impossibility of Job's servants being held against their wills, 
is not the only proof of their voluntary condition. We have his own 
explicit testimony that he had not " withheld from the poor their de. 
sire." Job. xxxi. 16. Of course he could hardly have made them live 
with him, and forced them to work for him against their desire." 

When Isaac sojourned in the country of the Philistines he "had 
great store of servants." And we have his testimony that the Philis. 
tines hated him, added to that of inspiration that they " envied" him. 
Of course they would hardly volunteer to organize patroles and com- 
mittees of vigilance to keep his servants from running away, and to 
di-ive back all who were found beyond the limits of his plantation with- 
out a " pass !" If the thousands of Isaac's servants were held against 
their wills, who held them ?" 

The servants of the Jews, during the building of the wall of Jeru- 
salem, under Nehemiah, may be included under this head. That they 
remained with their masters of their own accord, we argue from the fact, 
that the circumstances of the Jews made it impossible for them to conpel 
their residence and service. They were few in number, without resources, 
defensive fortifications, or munitions of war, and surrounded withal by a 
host of foes, scoffing at their feebleness and inviting desertion /rom their 
ranks. Yet so far from the Jews attempting in any way to restrain their 



ney minutely descriptive of the party absconded, and if in the northern region, 
he, or she will soon be had. 
" Mr. Pettis will attend promptly to all law business confided to him, 
" N. B. New York Ciiy is estimated to contain 5,000 Runaway Slaves, 

" PETTIS." 
5 



34 

servants, or resorting to precautions to prevent escape, they put arms into 
their hands, and enrolled them as a night-guard, for the defence of the 
city. By cheerfully engaging in this service and in labor by day, when 
with entire ease they might all have left their masters, marched over to 
the enemy, and been received with shoutings, the servants testified that 
their condition was one of their own choice, and that they regarded their 
own interests as inseparably identified with those of their masters. 
Neh. iv. 23. 

VI. No INSTANCES OF IsRAELITISH MASTERS SELLING SERVANTS. 

Neither A braham nor Isaac seem ever to have sold one, though they 
had " great store of servants." Jacob was himself a servant in the fa- 
mily of Laban twenty-one years. He had afterward a large number of 
servants. Joseph invited him to come into Egypt, and to bring all that 
he had with him — " thou and thy children, and thy children's children, 
and thy flocks and thy herds, and all that thou hast." Gen. xlv. 
10, Jacob took his flocks and herds but no servants. Yet we are told that 
Jacob " took his journey with all that he had." Gen. xlvi. i. And after 
his arrival in Egypt, Joseph said to Pharaoh " my father, and my brethen, 
and their flocks, and their herds and all that they have, are come." Gen. 
xlvii. 1. The servants doubtless, served under their oion contracts, 
and when Jacob went into Egypt, they chose to stay in their own country. 
The government might sell thieves, if they had no property, until 
their services had made good the injury, and paid the legal fine. Ex. xxii. 
3. But masters seem to have had no power to sell their servants. To 
give the master a right to sell his servant, would annihilate the servant's 
right of choice in his own disposal ; but says the objector, " to give the 
master a right to iuy a servant, equally annihilates the servant's right 
of choice." Answer. It is one thing to have a right to buy a man, 
and a quite another thing to have a right to buy him of another man.* 

Though servants were not bought of their masters, ;. et young fe- 
males were bought of their fathers. But their purchase as servants 
was their betrothal as wives. Ex. xxi. 7, 8. " If a man sell his daugh 
ter to be a maid-servant, she shall not go out as the men-servants do. 
If she please not her master wno hath betrothed her to himself, he 
shall let her be redeemed."! 



♦ There is no evidence that masters had the power to dispose of even the 
services of their servants, as men hire out their laborers whom they emplov by 
the year ; but whether ihey had or not, a fleets not the argument. 

t The comment of Maimdnides on this passage is as follows: — " A Hebrew 
handmaid might not be sold but to one who laid himself under obligations, to 



d5 

VII. Voluntary servants from the strangers. 

We infer that all the servants from the Strangers were voluntary in 
becoming such, since we have direct testimony that some of them were 
so. « Thou shalt not oppress an hired servant that is poor and needy, 
whether he be of thy brethren, or of thy strangers that are in thy land 
within thy gates." Deut. xxiv. 14. We learn from this that some of the 
servants, which the Israelites obtained from the strangers were procured 
by presenting the inducement of wages to their free choice, thus recog- 
nizing their right to sell their services to others, or not, at their own 
pleasure. Did the Israelites, when they went among the heathen to 
procure servants, take money in one hand and ropes hi the other ? Did 
they ask one man to engage in their service, and drag along with them 
the next that they met, in spite of his struggles. Did they knock for ad- 
mission at one door and break down the next ? Did they go through one 
village with friendly salutations and respectful demeanor, and with the 
air of those soliciting favors, offer wages to the inhabitants as an in- 
ducement to engage in their service— while they sent on their agents to 
prowl through the next, with a kidnapping posse at their heels, to tear 
from their homes as many as they could get within their clutches ? 

viii. Hebrew servants voluntary. We infer that the Hebrew 
servant was voluntary in commencing his service, because he was pre- 
eminently so in continuing it. If, at the year of release, it was the 
servant's choice to remain with his master, the law required his ear to be 
i)ored by the judges of the land, thus making it impossible for him to be 
held against his will. Yea more, his master was compelled to keep iiiin, 
however much he might wish to get rid of him. 

IX. The manner of procuring servants, an appeal to choice. 
The Israehtes were commanded to offer them a suitable inducement, 
and then leave tliem to decide. They might neither seize them by 
force, nor frighten them by threats, nor wheedle them by false pre- 
tences, nor borrow them, nor beg them ; but they were commanded to 
BUY them*— that is, they were to recognize the right of the indivi- 
duals to dispose of their own services, and their right to refuse all offers, 



espouse her to himself or to his son, when she was fit to be betrothed."— Mzimo- 
nides—Hilcolh—Obedim, Ch. IV. Sec. XI. Jarchi, on the same passage, says, 
" He is bound to espouse her to be his wife, for ihe money of her purchase is the 
money of her espousal. 

* The case of thieves, whose services were sold until they had earned 
enough to make restitution to the person wronged, and to pay the legal penalty, 
stands by itself, and has nothing to do with the condition of servants. 



36 

and thus oblige those who made them, to do their oivn work. Suppose 
all, with one accord, had refused to become servants, what provision 
did the Mosaic law make for such an emergency ? None. 

X. Incidental corroeoratives. Various incidental expressions 
corroborate the idea that servants became such by their own contract. 
Job. xli. 4, is an illustration, " Will he (Leviathan) make a covenant 
with thee ? wilt thou take him for a servant forever ?" Isa. xiv. 1, 2 
is also an illustration. " The strangers shall be joined with them (the 
Israelites) and they shall cleave to the house of Jacob, and the house of 
Israel shall possess them in the land of the Lord, for servants and 
handmaids." 

The transaction whicn made me Egyptians the servants of 
PHARAOH was voluntary throughout. See Gen. xlvii. 18 — 26. Of 
their own accord they came to Joseph and said, •' There is not aught 
left but our bodies and our lands ; buy us ;" then in the 25th verse, 
" We will be Pharaoh's servants." To these it may be added, that the 
sacrifices and offerings which all were required to present, were to 
be made voluntarily. Lev. i. 2. 3. 

The pertinence and point of our Lord's declaration in Luke xvi. 13, 
is destroyed on the supposition that servants did not become such by 
their own choice. "No servant can serve two masters : for either he 
will hate the one and love the other, or else he will hold to the one 
and despise the other." Let it be kept in mind, that our Lord was a 
Jew. The lost sheep of the house of Israel were his flock. Wherever 
he went, they were around him : whenever he spake, they were his 
auditors. His public preaching and his private teaching and conver- 
sation, were full of references to their own institutions, laws and usages, 
and of illustrations drawn from them. In the verse quoted, he illus- 
trates the impossibility of their making choice of God as their portion, 
and becoming his servants, while they chose the world, and were its 
servants. To make this clear, he refers to one of their own institu- 
tions, that of domestic service, with which, in all its relations, incidents 
and usages, they were perfectly familiar. He reminds them of the 
well-known impossibility of any person being the servant of two mas- 
ters, and declares the sole ground of that impossibility to be, the fact 
that the servant chooses the service of the one, and spurns that of the 
other. "He shall hold to the one and despise (reject) the other." As 
though our Lord had said, •' No one can become the servant of an- 
other, when his will revolts from his service, and when the conditions 
of it tend to make him hate the man." Since the fact that the servant 
spurns one of two masters, makes it impossible for him to serve iJiat one.. 



37 



if he spurned both it would make it impossible for him to serve either. 
So, also, if the fact that an individual did not " hold to" or choose the 
service of another, proves that he could not become his servant, then 
the question, whether or not he should become the servant of another 
was suspended on his own will. Further, the phraseology of the ^/^s- 
sage shows that the choice of the servant decided the question. " He 
will HOLD TO the one,"— hence there is no difficulty in the way of his 
serving him ; but " no servant can serve" a master whom he does not 
" hold to" or cleave to, whose service he does not ch)Ose. This is the 
sole ground of the impossibility asserted by our Lord. 

The last clause of the verse furnishes an application of the princi- 
pie asserted in the former part, " Ye cannot serve God and mammon." 
Now in what does the impossibility of serving both God and the 
world consist ? Solely in the fact that the will which chooses the one 
refuses the ot'.er, and 'the affections which "hold to" the one, reject 
the other. Thus the question, Which of the two is to be served, is 
suspended alone upon the chocce of the individual. 

XI. Rich strangers did not become servants. Indeed, so far were 
they from becoming servants themselves, that they bought and held 
Jewish servants. Lev. xxv. 47. Since rich strangers did not be- 
come servants to the Israelites, we infer that those who did, became 
such not because they were stravgers, but because they were ^joor, - not 
because, on account of their being heathen, they were compelled by force 
to become servants, but because, on account of their ^overly, they chose 
to become servants to better their condition. 

XII. Instances of voluntary servants. Mention is often made 
of persons becoming servants who were manifestly voluntary. 
As the Prophet Elisha. 1 Kings xix. 21 ; 2 Kings iii. 11. Elijah 
was his imster. 2 Kings ii. 5. The word translated master, is the 
same that is so rendered in almost every instance where masters are 
spoken of under the Mosaic and patriarchal systems. Moses was the 
servant of Jethro. Ex. iii. 1 ; iv. 10. Joshua was the servant of 
Moses. Ex.xxxiii.il. Num. xi. 28. Jacob was the servant of La- 
ban. Gen. xxix. 18—27. See also the case of the Gibeonites who 
voluntarily became servants to the Israelites and afterwards performed 
service for the " house of God" throughout the subsequent Jewish his- 
tory, were incorporate with the Israelites, registered in the genealogies, 
and manifestly of their own accord remained with them, and " clave" 
to them. Neh. x. 28. 29 ; xi. 3 ; Ez. vii. 7. 

Finally, in all the regulations respecting servants and tlieir service, 
no form of expression is employed from which it could bo inferred, that 



88 

servants were made such, and held in that condition by force. Add to 
this tlie entire absence of all the machinery, appurtenances and inci- 
dents of compulsion. 

Voluntary service on the part of servants would have been in keep- 
ing with regulations which abounded in the Mosaic system and sustain- 
ed by a multitude of analogies. Compulsoiy service on the other 
hand, could have harmonized with nothing, and would have been the 
solitary disturbing force, marring its design, counteracting its tenden- 
cies, and confusing and falsifying its types. The directions given to 
regulate the performance of service for \hQ public, lay great stress on the 
willingness of those employed to perform it. For the spirit and usages 
that obtained under the Mosaic system in this respect, see 1 Chron. 
xxviii. 21 ; Ex. xxxv. 5. 21, 22. 29 ; 1 Chron. xxix. 5. 6. 9. 14. 17 ; 
Ex. XXV. 2 ; Judges v. 2 ; Lev. xxii. 29 ; 2 Chron. xxxv. 8 ; Ezra i. 6 ; 
Ex. xxxv ; Neh. xi. 2.* 

Again, the voluntariness of servants is a natural inference from 
the fact that the Hebrew word ebedh, uniformly rendered servant, is 
applied to a great variety of classes and descriptions of persons under 
the patriarchal and Jewish dispensations, all of whom were voluntary 
and most of them eminently so. For instance, it is applied to persons 
rendering acts of icorship about seventy times, whereas it is applied to 
servants not more than lialf that number of times. 

To this we may add, that the illustrations drawn from the condition 
and service of servants and the ideas which the term servant is employed 
to convey when applied figuratively to moral subjects would, in most 
instances, lose all their force, and often become absurdities if the will 
of the servant resisted his service, and he performed it only by co7n- 
pulsion. Many passages will at once occur to those who are familiar 
with the Bible. We give a single example. " To lohom ye yield 
YOURSELVES scrvants to obey, his servants ye are to ivhom ye obey.''"' Rom. 
vi. 16. It would hardly be possible to assert the voluntariness of ser- 
vants more strongly in a direct proposition than it is here asserted by 
implication. 



* We should naturally infer that the directions which regulated the rendering 
of service tu individuals, would proceed upon the same principle in this respect 
with those which regulated the rendering of service to the imhlic. Otherwise 
the Mosaic system, instead of constituting in its different parts a harmonious 
-whole, would be divided against itself; its principles counteracting and nullify- 
ing each other. 



39 



III WERE SERVANTS FORCED TO WORK WITHOUT 

PAY ? 

As the servants became and continued such of their (rum accord, it 
would be no small marvel if they chose to work without pay. Tlieir 
becoming servants, pre-supposes compensation as a motive. That they 
were paid for their labor, we argue. 

I Because God rebuked the using of service without 
WAGES " Wo unto him that buildeth his house by unrighteousness, 
and his chambers by wrong; that useth his neighbor's service 

WITHOUT wages, AND GIVETH HIM NOT FOR HIS WORK. Jcr. XXU. 

13 The Hebrew word red, translated neighbor, means any one 
with whom we have to do-all descriptions of persons, even those who 
prosecute us in lawsuits, and enemies while in the act of fighting us- 
« As when a man riseth against his neighbor and slayeth him. 
Deut xxii. 26. « Go not forth hastily to strive, lest thou know not what 
to do in the end thereof, when thy neighbor hath put thee to shame. 
Prov. XXV. 8. " Thou shalt not bear false witness agamst thy neigh- 
bor " Ex XX. 16. If a man come presumptuously upon his 
NEIGHBOR to slay him with guile." Ex. xxi. 14, &c. The doctrine 
plainly inculcated in this passage is, that every man's labor, or " ser- 
vice," being his own property, he is entitled to the profit of it, and that 
for another to " use" it without paying him the value of it, is " unright- 
eousness." The last clause of the verse, « and giveth him not for his 
work," reaffirms the same principle, that every man is to be paid for 
" his work." In the context, the prophet contrasts the unrighteousness 
of those who used the labor of others without pay, with the justice and 
equity practiced by their patriarchal ancestor toward the poor '"Did 
not thy father eat and drink and do judgment and justice, and then it 
was well with him. He judged the cause of the poor and needy ; then it 
was well with him. But thine eyes and thine heart are not but for thy 
covetousness, and for to shed innocent blood, and for oppression, and for 

violence to do it." Jer. xxii . 15, 16, 17.* 

* Paul lays down the same principle in the form of a precept. ''Masters 
ffive unto your servants that which is just and EdUAi.. Col. iv 1. inus 
Tonly asLting the ..,kt of the servant to an equivalent for h. a or and 
the duty of the master to render it, but condemning all :hose relations be 
ween master and servant which were not founded upon l"f - and equahty 
of rights. The apostle James enforces the same principle. Behold the 
Lotthe laborers! who havereapeddownyourlieldswhiehisof^^,^^^^^^^^^^^^ 

.. r w .rioth " Tames V 4 As though he had said, wages are me 
LC^H of iS rers t^i who work for you have a Just claim on you for 
tl £^ ou refase to render, and thus il^fraud them bv keepmg from 
fhem what belongs to them." See also Mai. iii. 5. 



40 

II. God testifies that in our duty to our fellow men, all 

THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS HANG UPON THIS COMMAND, " ThOU 

SHALT LOVE THY NEIGHBOR AS THYSELF." Our Savior, in giving this 
command, quoted verbatim one of the laws of the Mosaic system. 
Lev. xix. 18. In the 34th verse of the same chapter, Moses appHes this 
law to the treatment of strangers, " The stranger that dwelleth with 
you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love 
HIM AS THYSELF." If it be loving others as ourselves, to make them 
work for us without pay ; to rob them of food and clothing also, 
would be a stronger illustration still of the law of love ! iS'M;?er-dis. 
interested benevolence ! And if it be doing unto others as we would 
have them do to us, to make them work for our own good alone, Paul 
should be called to order for his hard sayings against human nature, 
especially for that libellous matter in Eph. v. 29, " No man ever yet 
hated his own flesh, but nourisheth it and cherisheth it. " 

III. Servants were often wealthy. As persons became servants 
FROM POVERTY, we argue that they were compensated, since they fre- 
quently owned property, and sometimes a large amount. Ziba, the 
servant of Mephibosheth, gave David " Two hundred loaves of bread, 
and a hundred bunches of raisins, and a hundred of summer fruits, and 
a bottle of wine." 2 Sam. xvi. 1. The extent of his possessions can 
be inferred from the fact, that though the father of fifteen sons, he had 
twenty servants. In Lev. xxv. 47 — 49, where a servant, reduced to 
poverty, sold himself, it is declared that he may be redeemed, either by 
his kindred, or by himself. Having been forced to sell himself from 
poverty, he must have acquired considerable property after he became 
a servant. If it had not been common for servants to acquire property 
over which they had the control, the servant of Elisha would hardly 
have ventured to take a large sum of money, (nearly $3000*) from 
Naaman, 2 Kings v. 22, 23. As it was procured by deceit, he wished 
to conceal the means used in getting it ; but if servants could " own 
nothing, nor acquire any thing," to embark in such an enterprise would 
have been consummate stupidity. The fact of having in his possession 
two talents of silver, would of itself convict him of thefl.f But since it 



* Though we have not sufBcicnl data to decide upon the relative vaUie of that 
sum, then awinoio, yet we have enough to warrant us in saying that two talents 
of silver, had far more value then than three thousand dollars have note. 

t Whoever heard of the slaves in our southern states stealing a large amount 
of money "? They " know how to take care of thcvi$clves" quite too well for that. 
When they steal, they are careful to do it on such a small scale, or in the tak- 



41 

was common for servants to own property, he might have it, and invest 
or use it, without attracting special attention, and that consideration 
alone would have been a strong motive to the act. His master, 
though he rebuked him for using such means to get the money, not 
only does not take it from him, but seems to expect that he would in- 
vest it in real estate, and cattle, and would procure servants with it. 
2 Kings V. 26. We find the servant of Saul having money, and re- 
lieving his master in an emergency. 1 Sam. ix. 8. Arza, the ser- 
vant of Elah, was the otvner of a house. That it was somewhat mag- 
nificent, would be a natural inference from its being a resort of the 
king. 1 Kings xvi. 9. When Jacob became the servant of Laban, it 
was evidently from poverty, yet Laban said to him, Tell me " what 
shall thy wages be ?" After Jacob had been his servant for ten years, 
he proposed to set up for himself, but Laban said " Appoint me thy 
wages and I will give it," and he paid him his price. During the 
twenty years that Jacob was a servant, he always worked for wages 
and at his own price. Gen. xxLx. 15, 18 ; xxx. 28 — 33. The case 
of the Gibeonites, who, after becoming servants, still occupied their 
cities, and remained in many respects, a distinct people for centuries ;* 
and that of the 150,000 Canaanites, the servants of Solomon, who 
worked out their " tribute of bond-service" in levies, periodically re- 



ing of such things as will make detection difficult. No doubt they steal now 
and then, and a gaping marvel would it be if they did not. Why should they 
not follow in the footsteps of their masters and mistresses 1 Dull scholars in- 
deed ! if, after so many lessons from proficients in the art, who drive the busi- 
ness by wholesale, they should not occasionally copy their betters, fall into the 
fashion, and try their hand in a small way, at a practice which is the only per- 
manent and universal business carried on around them ! Ignoble truly ! never 
to feel the stirrings of high impulse, prompting to imitate the eminent pattern 
set before them in the daily vocation of " Honorables" and " Excellencies," and 
to emulate the illustrious examples of Doctors of Divinity, and Right and Very 
Reverends ! Hear President Jefferson's testimony. In his Notes on Virginia, 
pp. 207-8, speaking of slaves, he says, " That disposition to theft with which 
they have been branded, must be ascribed to their situation, and not to any 
special depravity of the moral sense. It is a problem which I give the master 
to solve, whether the religious precepts against the violation of property were 
not framed for him as well as for his slave — and whether the slave may not 
as justifiably take a little from one who has taken ALL from him, as he may 
slay one who would slay him ?" 

* The Nethinims, which name was afterwards given to the Gibeonites on ac- 
count of their being set apart for the service of the tabernacle, had their own 
houses and cities and " dwelt every one in his own possession." Neh. xi. 3. 21 ; 
Ezra ii. 70 ; 1 Chron. ix. 2. 

6 



42 

lieving each other, are additional illustrations of independence in the 
acquisition and ownership of property. 

Again. The Israelites often hired servants from the strangers. 
Deut. xxiv. 17. 

Since then it is certain that they gave wages to a part of their Canaan- 
itish servants, thus recognizing their riglit to a reward for their labor, 
we infer that they did not rob the rest of their earnings. 

If God gave them a license to make the strangers work for them 
without pay — if this was good and acceptable in His sight, and riglit 
and just in itself, they must have been great fools to have wasted their 
money by paying wages when they could have saved it, by making the 
strangers do all their work for nothing ! Besides, by refusing to avail 
themselves of this " Divine license," they despised the blessing and 
cast contempt on the giver ! But far be it from us to do the Israelites 
injustice ; perhaps they seized all the Canaanites they could lay their 
hands on, and forced them to work without pay, but not being able to 
catch enough to do their work, were obliged to offer wages in order to 
eke out the supply ! 

Ths parable of our Lord, contained in Mat. xviii. 23 — 34, not only de- 
rives its significance from the fact, that servants can both own and moe 
and earn property, over which they had the control, but would be made 
a medley of contradictions on any other supposition. — 1. Their lord 
at a set time proceeded to " take account" and " reckon" with his ser- 
vants ; the phraseology itself showing that the relations between the 
parties, were those of debt and credit. 2. As the reckoning went on, 
one of his servants was found to owe him ten thousand talents. From 
the fact that the servant owed this to his master, we naturally infer, that 
'ae must have been at some time, and in some way, the responsible 
owner of that amount, or of its substantial equivalent. Not that he had 
had that amount put into his hands to invest, or disburse, in his master's 
name, merely as his agent, for in that case no claim of delt for value 
received would lie, but, that having sustained the responsibilities of legal 
proprietorsMp, he was under the liabilities resulting therefrom. 3. Not 
having on hand wherewith to pay, he says to his master " have patience 
with me and I will pay thee all." If the servant had been his master's 
property, his time and earnings belonged to the master as a matter of 
course, hence the promise to earn and pay over that amount, was vir- 
tually saying to his master, " I will take money out of your pocket 
with which to pay my debt to you," thus adding insult to injury. The 
promise of the servant to pay the debt on condition that the time for 
payment should be postponed, not only proceeds upon the fact that his 



43 

time was his own, that he was constantly earning property or in cir- 
cumstances that enabled him to earn it, and that he was the proprietor of 
his earnings, but that his master ha.d full knotoledge of that fact. — In a 
word, the supposition that the master was the owner of the servant, 
would annihilate all legal claim upon him for value received, and that 
the servant was the property of the master, would absolve him from all 
obhgations of debt, or rather would always ybre,stoZ/ such obligations — for 
the relations of owner and creditor in such case, would annihilate each 
other, as would those of property and debtor. The fact that the same 
servant was the creditor of one of his fellow servants, who owed him 
a considerable sum, and that at last he was imprisoned until he should 
pay all that was due to his master, are additional corroborations of the 
same point. 

IV. Heirship. — Servants frequently inherited their master's proper- 
ty ; especially if he had no sons, or if they had dishonored the family. 
Eliezer, the servant of Abraham, Gen. xv. 23 ; Ziba, the servant of 
Mephibosheth ; Jarha, the servant of Sheshan, who married his daugh- 
ter, and thus became his heir, he having no sons, and the husbandmen 
who said of their master's son, " this is the heir, let us kill him, and 
the INHERITANCE WILL BE OURS," are illustrations ; also Prov. xxx. 23, 
an handmaid (or maid-servant,) that is heir to her mistress ; also Prov. 
xvii. 2 — " A wise servant shall have rule over a son that causetli 
shame, and shall have part of the inheritance among the breth- 
ren." This passage gives servants precedence as heirs, even over the 
wives and daughters of their masters. Did masters hold by force, and 
plunder of earnings, a class of persons, from which, in frequent con- 
tingences, they selected both heirs for their property, and husbands 
for their daughters ? 

V. All were required to present offerings and sacrifices. 
Deut. xvi. 16, 17 ; 2 Chron. xv. 9—11 -, Numb. ix. 13, 14. Beside this, 
" every man" from twenty years old and above, was required to pay 
a tax of half a shekel at the taking of the census ; this is called " an 
offering unto the Lord to make an atonement for their souls." Ex. 
xxx. 12 — 16. See also Ex. xxxiv. 20. Servants must have had per- 
manently the means of acquiring property to meet these expenditures. 

VI. Servants who went out at the seventh year, were " fur- 
nished liberally." Deut. xv. 10 — 14. " Thou shalt furnish him libc- 
rally out of thy flock, and out of thy floor, and out of thy wine press, of 
that wherewith the Lord thy God hath blessed thee, thou shalt give him."* 

* The comment of Maimonides on this passage is as follows — " ' Thou shalt 



44 

If it be said that the servants from the Strangers did not receive a Uke 

bountiful supply, we answer, neither did the most honorable class of 
Israelitish servants, the free-holders ; and for the same reason, they 
did not go out in the seventh year, but continued until the jubilee. If the 
fact that the Gentile servants did not receive such a gratuity proves 
that they were robbed of their earnings, it proves that the most valued 
class of Hebrew servants were robbed of theirs also ; a conclusion too 
stubborn for even pro-slavery masticators, however unscrupulous. 

VII. Servants were bought. In other words, they received com- 
pensation in advance.* Having shown, under a previous head, that 
servants sold themselves, and of course received the compensation for 
themselves, except in cases where parents hired out the time of their 
children till they became of age,f a mere reference to the fact is all 
that is required for the purposes of this argument. As all the strangers 
in the land were required to pay an annual tribute to the government, 
the Israelites might often " buy" them as family servants, by stipulating 
with them to pay their annual tribute. This assumption of their obliga- 
tions to the government might cover the whole of the servant's time of 
service, or a part of it, at the pleasure of the parties. 

VIII. The right of servants to compensation is recognised in 
Ex. xxi. 27. "And if he smite out his man-servant's, or his maid-ser- 
vant's tooth, he shall let him go free for his tooth's sake." " This regu- 
lation is manifestly based upon the right of the servant to the use of 



furnish him liberally,' &c. That is to say, ' Loading, ye shall load him,' like- 
wise every one of his family with as much as he can take with him — abundant 
benefits. And if it be avariciously asked, ' How much must I ^ve him V I 
say unto you, not less than thirty shekels, which is the valuation of a servant, as 
declared in Ex. xxi. 32." — Maimonides, Hilcoth Obedim, Chap. ii. Sec. 3. 

*But, says the objector, if servants received their pay in advance, and if the 
Israelites were forbidden to surrender the fugitive to his master, it would ope- 
rate practically as a bounty offered to all servants who would leave their mas- 
ter's service encouraging them to make contracts, get their pay in advance and 
then run away, thus cheating their masters out of their money as well as their 
own services. — "We answer, the prohibition, Deut xxiri. 15. 16, " Thou shall not 
deliver unto his master," &c., sets the servant free from his anthoriti/ aad of 
course, from all those liabilities of injury, to whicii as his servant, he was 
subjected, but not from the obligation of legal contracts. If the servant had 
received pay in advance, and had not rendered an equivalent for this " vajue 
received," he was not absolved from his obligation to do so, but he was ab- 
solved from all obligations to pay his master in that particular way, that is, 
by working for him as his servant. 

t Among the Israelites, girls became of age at twelve, and boys at thirteen 
years. 



45 

himself and all his powers, faculties and personal conveniences, and 
consequently his just claim for remuneration, upon him, who should 
however unintentionally, deprive him of the use even of the least of them. 
If the servant had a right to his tooth and the use of it, upon the same 
principle, he had a right to the rest of his body and the use of it. If 
he had a right to the fraction, and if it was his to hold, to use, and to 
have pay for ; he had a right to the sum total, and it was his to hold, to 
use, and to have pay for. 

IX. We find masters at one time having a laege number of ser- 
vants, AND AFTERWARDS NONE, WITH NO INTIMATION IN ANY CASE THAT 

THEY WERE SOLD. The wages of servants would enable them to set up 
in business for themselves. Jacob, after being Laban's servant for 
twenty-one years, became thus an independent herdsman, and had 
many servants. Gen. xxx. 43 ; xxxii. 16. But all these servants had left 
him before he went down into Egypt, having doubtless acquired enough 
to commence business for themselves. Gen. xlv. 10, 11 ; xlvi. 1 — 7, 
32. The case of Ziba, the servant of Mephibosheth, who had twenty 
servants, has been already mentioned. 

X. God's testimony to the character of abraham. Gen. xviii. 19. 
" For I know him that he will command his children and his household 
after him, and they shall keep the way of the Lord to do justice 
AND JUDGMENT." God here testifies that Abraham taught his ser- 
vants "the way of the Lord." What was the "way of the Lord" re- 
specting the payment of wages where service was ivindered ? " Wo 
unto him that useth liis neighbor's service without wages !" Jer. 
xxii. 13. " Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and 
EQUAL." Col. iv. 1. "Render unto all their DUES." Rom. xiii. 7. 
" The laborer is worthy of his hire." Luke x. 7. How did Abra- 
ham teach his servants to "do justice" to others? By doing injustice 
to them ? Did he exhort them to " render to all their dues" by keep- 
ing back their own ? Did he teach them that " the laborer was worthy 
of his hire" by robbing them of theirs ? Did he beget in them a reve- 
rence for honesty by pilfering all their time and labor ? Did he teach 
them " not to defraud" others " in any matter" by denying them " what 
was just and equal ?" If each of Abraham's pupils under such a cate- 
chism did not become a very Aristides in justice, then illustrious ex- 
amples, patriarchal dignity, and practical lessons, can make but slow 
headway against human perverscness ! 

XI. Specific precepts of the Mosaic law enforcing general 
PRINCIPLES. Out of many, we select the following: (1.) " Thou 
shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn." Deut. xxv. 4. 



46 

Here is a general principle appUed to a familiar case. The ox repre- 
senting all domestic animals. Isa. xxx. 24. A particular kind of ser- 
vice, all kinds ; and a law requiring an' abundant provision for the 
wants of an animal ministering to man in a certain way,— a general 
principle of treatment covering all times, modes, and instrumentalities 
of service. The object of the law was ; not merely to enjoin tender- 
ness towards brutes, but to inculcate the duty of rewarding those who 
serve us ; and if such care be enjoined, by God, both for the ample 
sustenance and present enjoyment of a brute, what would be a meet 
return for the services of Tnan ?— man with his varied wants, exalted 
nature and immortal destiny ! Paul says expressly, that this principle 
lies at the bottom of the statute. 1 Cor. ix. 9, 10, " For it is written 
in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that 
treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen ? Or saith he 
it altogether for our sakes 1 that he that ploweth should plow in hope, 
and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope." 
In the context, Paul innumerates the four grand divisions of labor 
among the Jews in illustration of the principle that the laborer, what- 
ever may be the service he performs, is entitled to a reward. The 
priests, Levites and all engaged in sacred things— the military, those 
who tended flocks and herds, and those who cultivated the soil. As 
the latter employment engaged the great body of the Israelites, the 
Apostle amplifies his illustration under that head by much detail— and 
enumerates the five great departments of agricultural labor among 
the Jews — vine-dressing, plowing, sowing, reaping and threshing, as 
the representatives of universal labor. In his epistle to Timothy, 1 
Tim. V. 18. Paul quotes again this precept of the Mosaic law, and 
connects with it the declaration of our Lord. Luke x. 7. " The laborer 
is worthy of his hire," — as both inculcating the same doctrine, that he 
who labors, whatever the employment, or whoever the laborer, is en- 
titled to a reward. The Apostle thus declares the principle of right 
i-.ispecting the performance of service for others, and the rule of duty 
towards those who perform it, to be the same under both dispensations. 
(2.) " If thy brother be waxen poor, and fallen in decay with thee, 
then thou shalt relieve him, yea though he be a stranger or a so- 
jouRNER that he may live with thee. Take thou no usury of him, or 
increase, but fear thy God. Thou shalt not give him thy money upon 
usury, nor lend him thy victuals for increase." Lev. xxv. 35 — 37. 
Now, we ask, by what jjroccss of pro-slavery legerdemain, this regu- 
lation can be made to harmonize with the doctrine of work without 
pay ? Did God declare the poor stranger entitled to relief, and in 



47 



the same breath, authorize them to •' use his service without wages ;" 
force him to work and rob him of his earnings ? 



IV.— WERE MASTERS THE PROPRIETORS OF SER- 
VANTS AS LEGAL PROPERTY ? 

This topic has been unavoidably somewhat anticipated, in the fore- 
going discussion, but a variety of additional considerations remain to be 
noticed. 

I. Servants were not subjected to the uses nor liable to 
THE contingencies OF PROPERTY. 1 They were never taken in pay- 
ment for their masters' debts. Children were sometimes taken (without 
legal authority) for the debts of a father. 2 Kings iv. 1 ; Job xxiv. 9 ; 
Tsa. 1. 1 ; Matt, xviii. 25. Creditors took from debtors property of 
all kinds, to satisfy their demands. Job xxiv. 3, cattle are taken ; Prov. 
xxii. 27, household furniture ; Lev. xxv. 25 — 28, the productions of 
the soil ; Lev. xxv. 27 — 30, houses ; Ex. xxii. 26, 27 ; Ueut. xxiv. 
10 — 13 ; Matt. v. 40, clothing ; but servants were taken in no instance. 
2. Servants were never given as pledges. Property of all sorts was 
pledged for value received ; household furniture, clothing, cattle, money, 
signets, personal ornaments, &c., but no servants. 3. Servants were not 
put into the hands of others, or consigned to their keeping. The precept 
giving directions how to proceed in a case where properly that has life is 
delivered to another " to keep," and " it die or be hurt or driven away," 
enumerates oxen, asses, sheep or " any beast," but not servants. Ex. xxii. 
10. 4. All lost property was to be restored. Oxen, asses, sheep 
raiment, and " all lost things," are specified — servants not. Deut. xxii 
1—3. Besides, the Israelites were forbidden to return the runaway 
servant. Deut. xxiii, 15. 5. Servants were not sold. When by flag- 
rant misconduct, unfaithfulness or from whatever cause, they had justly 
forfeited their privilege of membership in an Israelitish family, they 
were not sold, but expelled from the household. Luke xvi. 2 — 4 ; 2 
Kings V. 20, 27 ; Gen. xxi. 14. 6 The Israelites never received ser- 
vants as tribute. At different times all the nations round about them 
were their tributaries and paid them annually large amounts. They 
received property of all kinds in payment of tribute. Gold, silver, brass> 
iron, precious stones, and vessels, armor, spices, raiment, harness, horses? 
mules, sheep, goats,&c., are in various places enumerated, but servants, 
never. 7. The Israelites never gave, away their servants as presents. 
They made cosily presents, of great variety. Lands, houses, all kinds 



48 



ofdomesticanimals, beds, merchandize, family utensils, precious metals, 
grain, honey, butter, cheese, fruits, oil, wine, raiment, armor, &c., are 
among their recorded gifi^. Giving presents to superiors and persons 
of rank, was a standing usage. 1 Sam. x. 27 ; xvi. 20 ; 2 Chron. 
xvii. 5 Abraham to Abimelech, Gen. xxi. 27 ; Jacob to the viceroy 
of Eoypt, Gen. xliii. 11 ; Joseph to his brethren and father, Gen. 
xlv. 22,23; Benhadad to Elisha, 2 Kings viii. 8, 9; Ahaz to Tiglath 
Pilezer, 2 Kings vi. 8 ; Solomon to the Queen of Sheba, 1 Kuigs x. 13 ; 
Jeroboam to Ahijah, 1 Kings xiv. 3 ; Asa to Benhadad, 1 Kings xv. 18, 
19. Abigail the wife of Nabal to David, 1 Sam. xxv. 18. David to the 
elders of Judah, 1 Sam. xxx. 26. Jehoshaphat to his sons, 2. Chron. 
xxi 3. The Israelites to David, 1. Chon. xii. 39, 40, Shobi Machir 
and BarziUai to David, 2. Sam. xvii. 28, 29. But no servants were given 
as presents, though it was a prevailing fashion in the surrounding na- 
tions. Gen. xii. 16, xx. 14. In the last passage we are told that Abi. 
melech king of the Philistines « took sheep and oxen and men servants 
and women servants and gave them unto Abraham." Not long after 
this Abraham made Abimelech a present, the same kind with that which 
he had received from him except that he gave him no servants. " And 
Abraham took sheep and oxen and gave them unto Abimelech," Gen. 
xxi 27. It may be objected that Laban " gave" handmaids to his 
dau^rhte'rs, Jacob's wives.' Without enlarging on the nature of the poly- 
garny then prevalent, suffice it to say that the handmaids of wives were 
re<Tarded as wives, though of inferior dignity and authority. That 
Jacob so regarded his handmaids, is proved by his curse upon Reuben, 
Gen. xlix. 4, and 1 Chron. v. 1 ; also by the equality of their children 
with those of Rachel and Leah. But had it been otherwise— had Laban 
given them as articles of property, then, indeed, the example of this 
" good old slaveholder and patriarch," Saint Laban, would have been 
a forecloser to all argument. Ah ! we remember his jealousy for 
religion-hls holy indignation when he found that his " gods" were 
stolen ' How he mustered his clan, and plunged over the desert in 
hot pursuit seven days by forced marches ; how he ransacked a whole 
caravan, sifting the contents of every tent, little heeding such small mat- 
ters as domestic privacy, or female seclusion, for lo ! the zeal of his 
» IMAGES" had eaten him up ! No wonder that slavery, in ^ts^ Bible- 
navic^ation, drifting dismantled before the free gusts, should scud under 
the lee of such a pious worthy to haul up and refit ; invokmg his pro- 
tection, and the benediction, of his " gods ! " Again, it may be object- 
cd that servants were enumerated in inventories ot property, it that 
proves 'servants property, it proves mves property. " Thou shall not 



49 

covet thy neighbor's house, thou shall not covet thy neighbor's wife, 
nor his man-servant, nor his maid-servast, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor 
any thing that is thy neighbor's." Ex. xx. 17. In inventories of 
mere property, if servants are included, it is in such a way as to show 
that they are not regarded as property. Eccl. ii. 7, 8. But when the 
design is to show, not merely the wealth, but the greatness and power 
of any one, servants are spoken of, as well as property. In a word, 
if riches alone are spoken of, no mention is made of servants ; \{ great- 
ness, servants and property. Gen. xiii. 2, 5. "And Abraham was very 
rich in cattle, in silver, and in gold." Yet we are told, in the verse 
preceding, that he came up out of Egypt " with all that he had." 
" And Lot also had flocks, and herds, and tents." In the seventh verse 
servants are mentioned, " And there was a strife between the herdmen 
of Abraham's cattle and the herdmen of Lot's cattle." It is said of 
Isaac, " And the man waxed great, and went forward, and grew until he 
became very great. For he had possession of flocks, and possession of 
herds, and great store of servants." In immediate connection with this 
we find Abimelech the king of the Philistines saying to him. " Thou 
art much mightier than we." Shortly after this avowal, Isaac is waited 
upon by a deputation consisting of Abimelech, Phicol the chief captain 
of his army, and Ahuzzath, who says to him " Let there be now an 
oath betwixt us and thee, and let us make a covenant with thee, that 
thou wilt do us no hurt." Gen. xxvi. 13, 14, 16, 26, 28, 29.— A 
plain concession of the power which Isaac had both for aggression 
and defence in his " great store of servants ;" that is, of willing and aflfec 
tionate adherents to him as a just and benevolent prince. When 
Hamor and Sheckem speak to the Hivites of the riches of Abraham 
and his sons, they say, " Shall not their cattle and their substance and 
every least of theirs be ours ?" Gen. xxxiv. 23. See also Josh. xxii. 8 ; 
Gen. xxxiv. 23 ; Job. xlii. 12 ; 2 Chron. xxi. 3 ; xxxii. 27—29 ; Job. 
,.3_5; Deut. viii. 12— 17; Gen. xxiv. 35 ; xxvi. 13 ; xxx 43. Jacob's 
wives say to him, " All the riches which God has taken from our father 
that is ours and our children's." Then follows an inventory of pro- 
perty—" All his cattle," "all his goods," " tlie cattle of his getting." 
His numerous servants are not included with his property Comp. 
Gen. xxx. 43, with Gen. xxxi. 16—18. When Jacob sent me.ssen. 
gers to Esau, wishing to impress him with an idea of his state 
and sway, he bade them tell him not only of his riches, but of his 
GREATNESS ; that he had " oxen, and asses, and flocks, and men-ser- 
vants, and maid-servants." Gen. xxxii. 4, 5. Yet in the present which 
he sent, there were no servants ; though he manifestly selected the 
7 



S6 

mostvaluable kinds of property. Gen. xxxii. 14,15; see also Gen. 
xxxvi. 6, 7 ; xxxiv. 23. As flocks and herds were the staples of 
wealth, a large number of servants presupposed large possessions of 
cattle, which would require many herdsmen. When Jacob and "his 
sons went down into Egypt it is repeatedly asserted that they took all 
that they had. " Their cattle and their goods which they had gotten in 
the land of Canaan," " their flocks and their herds" are mentioned, but 
no servants. And as we have besides a full catalogue of the household, 
we know that he took with him no servants. That Jacob had many 
servants before his migration into Egypt, we learn from Gen. xxx. 43 ; 
xxxii. 5, 16, 19. That he was not the proprietor of these servants 
as his property is a probable inference from the fact that he did 
not take them with him, since we are expressly told that he did take 
aWhis property. Gen. xlv. 10 ; xlvi. 1, 32; xlvii. 1. When servants 
are spoken of in connection with mere property, the terms used to 
express the latter do not include the former. The Hebrew word 
mikne, is an illustration. It is derived from kdnd, to procure, to 
buy, and its meaning is, a possession, wealth, riches. It occurs more 
than forty times in the Old Testament, and is applied always to mere 
property, generally to domestic animals, but never to servants. In 
some instances, servants are mentioned in distinction from the mikne. 
" And Abraham took Sarah his wife, and Lot his brother's son, and 
all their substance that they had gathered ; and the souls that they 
had gotten in Haran, and they went forth to go into the land of 
Canaan." Gen. xii. 5. Many will have it, that these souls were a 
part of Abraham's substance (notwithstanding the pains here taken 
to separate them from it) — that they were slaves taken with him in 
nis migration as a part of his family effects. Who but slaveholders, 
either actually or in heart, would torture into the principle and practice 
of slavery, such a harmless phrase as " the souls that they had gotten ?" 
Until the African slave trade breathed its haze into the eyes of the 
church and smote her with palsy and decay, commentators saw no slavery 
in, " The souls that they had gotten." In the Targuni of Onkelos* 



* The Tare:ums are Chaldee paraphrases of parts of the Old Testament. The 
Targum of Onkelos is, for the most part, a very accurate and faithful transla- 
tion of the original, and was probably made at about the commencement of the 
Cnristian era. The Targum of Jonathan Ben Uzziel, bears about the same 
date. The Targum of Jerusalem was probably about five hundred years later. 
The Israelites, during their captivity in Babylon, lost, as a body, their own lan- 
guage. These translations into the Chaldee, the language which they acquired 
in Babylon, were thus called for by the necessity of the case. 



it is rendered, " The souls whom they had brought to obey the law 
in Haran." In the Targum of Jonathan, " The souls whom they had 
made proselytes in Haran." In the Targum of Jerusalem, " The souls 
proselyted in Haran." Jarchi, the prince of Jewish commentators, " The 
souls whom they had brought under the Divine wings." Jerome, one of the 
most learned of the Christian fathers, " The persons whom they had 
proselyted." The Persian version, the Vulgate, the Syriac, the Arabic, 
and the Samaritan all render it, " All the wealth which they had gather, 
ed, and the souls which they had made in Haran." Menochius, a com- 
mentator who wrote before our present translation of the Bible, ren- 
ders it, "Quas de idolatraria converterant." "Those whom they had 
converted from idolatry." Paulus Fagius,* "Quas instituerant in re- 
ligione." "Those whom they had established in religion." Luke 
Francke, a German commentator who lived two centuries ago, " Quas 
legi subjicerant." — "Those whom they had brought to obey the law." 
The same distinction is made between persons and property, in the enu- 
meration of Esau's household and the inventory of his effects. " And 
Esau took his wives and his sons and his daughters, and all the persons 
of his house, and his cattle, and all his beasts, and all his substance 
which he had got in the land of Canaan, and went into the country from 
the face of his brother Jacob. For their riches were more than that 
they might dwell together; and the land could not bear them because 
of their ca«/e." Gen. xxxvi. 6, 7. 

II. The condition and social estimation of servants make the 

DOCTRINE THAT THEY WERE COMMODITIES, AN ABSURDITY. As the head 

of a Jewish family possessed the same power over his wife, children, 
and grandchildren (if they were in his family) as over his servants, if 
the latter were articles of property, the former were equally such. If 
there were nothing else in the Mosaic Institutes or history establishing 
the social equality of the servants with their masters and their master's 
wives and children, those precepts which required that they should be 
guests at all the public feasts, and equal participants in the family and 
social rejoicings, would be quite sufficient to settle the question. Deut. 
xii. 12, 18; xvi. 10, 11, 13, 14. Ex, xii. 43, 44. St. Paul's tes- 
timony in Gal. iv. 1, shows the condition of servants : "Now I say unto 
you, that the heir, so long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a 



* This eminent Hebrew scholar was invited to England to superintend the 
translation of the Bible into English, under the patronage of Henry the Eighth. 
He had hardly commenced the work when he died. This was nearly a 
century before the date of our present translation. 



52 

SERVANT, though he be lord of all." That the interests of Abraham's 
servants were identified with those of their master's family, and that 
the utmost confidence was reposed in them, is shown in their being 
armed. Gen. xiv. 14, 15. When Abraham's servant went to Pada- 
naram, the young Princess Rebecca did not disdain to say to him, 
"Drink, my Lord," as "she hasted and let down her pitcher upon her 
hand, and gave him drink." Laban, the brother of Rebecca, "ungird- 
ed his camels, and brought him water to wash his feet, and the men's 
feet that were with him !" In the arrangements of Jacob's household 
on his journey from Padanaram to Canaan, we find his two maid ser- 
vants treated in the same manner and provided with the same accom- 
modations as Rachel and Leah. Each of them had a separate tent 
appropriated to her use. Gen. xxxi. 33. The social equality of ser- 
vants with their masters and other members of their master's families, 
is an obvious deduction from Ex. xxi. 7, 10, from which we learn that 
the sale of a young Jewish female as a servant, was also hetroihed as a 
wife, either to her master, or to one of his sons. In 1 Sam. ix. is an 
account of a festival in the city of Zuph, at which Samuel presided. 
None but those bidden, sat down at the feast, and only " about thirty 
persons" were invited. Q,uite a select party ! — the elite of the city. 
Saul and his servant had just arrived at Zuph, and both of them, at. Sa- 
muel's solicitation, accompany him as invited guests. " And Samuel 
took Saul and his servant, and brought them into the parlor (!) and 
made them sit in the chiefest seats among those that were bidden." 
A servant invited by the chief judge, ruler, and prophet in Israel, to 
dine publicly with a select party, in company with his master, wht) was 
at the same time anointed King of Israel ! and this servant introduced 
by Samuel into the parlor, and assigned, with his master, to the chief- 
est seat at the table ! This was "one of the servants" of Kish, Saul's 
father ; not the steward or the chief of them — not at all a picked man, 
but " one of the servants ;" any one that could be most easily spared, as 
no endowments specially rare would be likely to find scope in looking 
after a.^sos. David seems to have been for a time in all respects a ser- 
vant in Saul's family. He " stood before Mm." " And Saul sent to 
Jesse, saying, let David, I pray thee, stand before mc." He was Saul's 
personal servant, went on his errands, played on the harp for his 
amusement, bore his armor for him, and wlien he wished to visit his 
parents, asked permission of Jonathan, Saul's son. Saul also cjjUs him 
"my servant." 1 Sam. xvi. 21 — 23; xviii. 5; xx. 5, 6; xxii. 8. 
Yet David sat with the king at meat, married his daughter, and lived 
on terms of the closest intimacy with the heir apparent of the throne 



58 

Abimelech, who was first elected king of Shechem, and afterwards 
reigned over all Israel, was the son of a maid-servant. His mother's 
family seems to have been of much note in the city of Shechem, where 
her brothers manifestly held great ssvay. Judg. ix. 1 — C, 18. Jarha, 
an Eg^yptian, the servant of Sheshan, married his daughter. Tobiah, 
" the servant" and an Ammonite married the daughter of Shecaniah 
one of the chief men among the Jews in Jerusalem and was the intimate 
associate of Sanballat the governor of the Samaritans. We find Elah, 
the King of Israel, at a festive entertainment, in the house of Arza, his 
steward, or head servant, with whom he seems to have been on terms 
of familiarity. 1 Kings xvi. 8, 9. See also the intercourse between 
Gideon and his servants. Judg. vi. 27, and vii. 10, 11. The Levite 
of Mount Ephraim and his servant. Jud. xx. 3, 9, 11, 13, 19, 
21, 22. King Saul and his servant Doeg, one of his herdmen. 1 
Sam. XX. 1, 7; xxii. 9, 18, 22. King David and Ziba, the servant 
of Mephibosheth. 2 Sam. xvi. 1 — 4. Jonathan and his servant. 1 
Sam. xiv. 1 — 14. Elisha and his servant, Gehazi. 2 Kings iv. v. vi. 
Also between Joram king of Israel and the servant of Elisha. 2 Kings 
viii. 4, 5, and between Naaman " the Captain of the host of the king of 
Syiia" and the same person. 2 Kings v. 21 — 23. The fact stated under 
a previous head that servants were always invited guests at public and 
social festivals, is in perfect keeping with the foregoing exemplifications 
of the prevalent estimation in -which servants were held by the Israelites. 
Probably no one of the Old Testament patriarchs had more ser- 
vants than Job ; " This man was the greatest man of all the men of 
the east." Job, i. 3. We are not left in the dark as to the condition 
of his servants. After asserting his integrity, his strict justice, honesty, 
and equity, in his dealings with his fellow men, and declaring " I deliv- 
ered the poor," " I was eyes to the blind and feet was I to the lame," 
" 1 was a father to the poor, and the cause which I knew not I searched 
out," * * * he says " If I did despise the cause of my man-servant 
or my maid-servant when they contended with me * * * then let mine 
arm fall from the shoulder blade, and mine arm be broken from the 
bone." Job. xxix. 12, 15, 16 ; xxxi. 13, 22. The language em- 
ployed in this passage is the phraseology applied in judicial proceedings 
to those who implead one another, and whether it be understood lite- 
rally or figuratively, shows that whatever difference existed between 
Job and his servants in other respects, so far as rights are concerned, 
they were on equal ground with him, and that in the matter of daily 
intercourse, there was not the least restraint on their free speech in call- 
ing in question all his transactions with them, and that the relations 



54 

and claims of both parties were adjudicated on the principles of equity 
and reciprocal right. •< If I despised the cause of my man-servant," 
&c. In other words, if I treated it lightly, as though servants were not 
men, had not rights, and had not a claim for just dues and just estima- 
tion as human beings. " When they contended with me," that is, when 
they plead their rights, claimed what was due to them, or questioned 
the justice of any of my dealings with them. 

In the context Job virtually affirms as the ground of his just and 
equitable treatment of his servants, that they had the same rights as he 
had, and were, as human beings, entitled to equal consideration with him- 
self. By what language could he more forcibly utter his conviction of 
the oneness of their common origin and of the identity of their common 
nature, necessities, attribute and rights 1 As soon as he has said, " If 
I did despise the cause of my man-servant," &c., he follows it up with 
" What then shall I do when God raiseth up ? and when he visiteth, 
what shall I answer him ? Did not he that made me in the womb, 
make Mm? and did not one fashion us In the womb." In the next 
verse Job glories in the fact that he has not " withheld from the poor 
their desire." Is it the " desire" of the poor to be compelled by the rich 
to work for them, and without pay ? 

III. The case of the Gibeonites. The condition of the inhabitants 
of Gibeon, Chephirah, Beeroth, and Kirjathjearim, under the Hebrew 
commonwealth, is quoted in triumph by the advocates of slavery ; and 
truly they are right welcome to all the crumbs that can be gleaned 
from it. Milton's devils made desperate snatches at fruit that turned 
to ashes on their lips. The spirit of slavery raves under tornienting 
gnawings, and casts about in blind phrenzy for something to ease, or 
even to mock them. But for this, it would never have clutched at the 
Gibeonites, for even the incantations of the demon cauldron could not 
extract from their case enough to tantalize starvation's self. But to the 
question. What was the condition of the Gibeonites under the Israel- 
ites ? \. It was voluntary. Their own proposition to Joshua was to 
become servants. Josh. ix. 8, 11. It was accepted, but the kind of 
service which they should perform, was not specified until their gross 
imposition came to light ; they were then assigned to menial offices in 
the Tabernacle. 2. They were not domestic servants in the families of 
the Israelites. They still resided in their own cities, cultivated their 
own fields, tended their flocks and herds, and exercised the functions of 
a distinct, though not independent community. They were subject to 
the Jewish nation as tributaries. So far from being distributed among 
the Israelites and their internal organization as a distinct people abol- 



ished, they remained a separate, and, in some respects, an independent 
community for many centuries. When attacked by the Amorites, they 
appHed to the Israelites as confederates for aid — it was rendered, their 
enemies routed, and themselves left unmolested in their cities. Josh. x. 
6 — 18. Long afterwards, Saul slew some of them, and God sent upon 
Israel a three years' famine for it. David inquired of the Gibeonites, 
" What shall I do for you, and wherewith shall I make the atonement ?" 
At their demand, he delivered up to them seven of Saul's descendants. 
2 Sam. xxi. 1 — 9. The whole transaction was a formal recognition 
of the Gibeonites as a distinct people. There is no intimation that 
they served either families or individuals of the Israelites, but only the 
" house of God," or the Tabernacle. This was established first at 
Gilgal, a days' journey from their cities ; and then at Shiloh, nearly 
two days' journey from them ; where it continued about 350 years. 
During this period the Gibeonites inhabited their ancient cities and 
territory. Only a few, comparatively, could have been absent at any 
one time in attendance on the Tabernacle. Wherever allusion is made 
to them in the history, the main body are spoken of as at home. It is 
preposterous to suppose that all the inhabitants of these four cities could 
find employment at the Tabernacle. One of them " was a great city, 
as one of the royal cities ;" so large, that a confederacy of five kings, 
apparently the most powerful in the land, was deemed necessary for 
its destruction. It is probable that the men were divided into classes, 
ministering in rotation — each class a few days or weeks at a time. As 
the priests whose assistants they were, served by courses in rotation a 
week at a time ; it is not improbable that their periods of service were 
so arranged as to correspond. This service was their national tribute 
to the Israelites, for the privilege of residence and protection under 
their government. No service seems to have been required of the fe- 
males. As these Gibeonites were Canaanites, and as they had greatly 
exasperated the Israelites by impudent imposition and lying, we might 
assuredly expect that they would reduce them to the condition of chat- 
tels, if there was any case in which God permitted them to do so. 

IV. Egyptian bondage analyzed, 'throughout the Mosaic system, 
God warns the Israelites against holding their servants in such a con- 
dition as they were held in by the Egyptians. How often arc they 
pointed back to the grindings of their prison-house ! What motives to 
the exercise of justice and kindness towards their servants, are held out 
to their fears in threatened judgments ; to their hopes in promised 
good ; and to all within them that could feel, by those oft repeated 
words of tenderness and terror! "For ye were bondmen in the land 



56 

of Egypt" — waking anew the memory of tears and anguish, and of the 
wrath that avenged them. But what was the bondage of the Israehtes 
in Egypt ? Of what rights were they plundered and what did they re- 
tain? 

1. Tlicy were not dispersed among the families of Egypt* hut formed a 
separate community. Gen. xlvi. 34. Ex. viii. 22, 24 ; Ix. 26 ; x. 23 ; 
xi. 7 ; iv. 29 ; ii. 9 ; xvi. 22 ; xvii. 5 ; vi. 14. 2. They had the exclu- 
sive possession of the land of Goshenj'f " the best part of the land" of 
Egypt. Gen. xlv. 18 ; xlvii. 6, 11, 27 ; Ex. viii. 22 ; ix. 26 ; xii. 4. 
Goshen must have been at a considerable distance from those parts of 
Egypt inhabited by the Egyptians ; so far at least as to prevent their 
contact with the Israelites, since the reason assigned for locating them in 
Goshen was, that shepherds were " an abomination to the Egyptians ;" 
besides, their employments would naturally lead them out of the settled 
parts of Egypt to find a free range of pasturage for their immense flocks 
and herds. 3. They lived in permanent dwellings. These were houses, 
not tents. In Ex. xii. 7, 22, the two side posts, and the upper door posts, 
and the lintel of the houses are mentioned. Each family seems to have 
occupied a house by itself. Acts vii. 20. Ex. xii. 4 — and judging from 
the regulation about the eating of the Passover, they could hardly 
have been small ones, Ex. xii. 4 ; probably contained separate 
apartments, as the entertainment of sojourners seems to have 
been a common usage. Ex. iii. 23 ; and also places for conceal- 
ment. Ex. ii. 2, 3 ; Acts vii. 20. They appear to have beer 
well apparelled. Ex. xii. 11. 4. They owned "focks and 
herds," and " very much cattle.^' Ex. xii. 4, 6, 32, 37, 38. From the 
fact that " every man" was commanded to kill either a iamb or a kid, one 
year old, for the Passover, before the people left Egypt, we infer tnat 
even the poorest of the Israelites owned a flock either of sheep or goats. 
Further, the immense multitude of their flocks and herds may be judged 
of from the expostulation of Moses with Jehovah. Num. xii. 21, 22. 



♦ The Egyptians evidently had domestic servants living in their iamilies ; 
these may have been slaves ; allusion is made to them in Ex. ii. 14, 20, 21, and 
xi. 5. 

t The land of Goshen was a large tract of country, east of the PeUisian arm 
of the Nile, and between it and the head of the Red Sea, and the lower border of 
Palestine. The probable centre of that portion, occupied by the Israelites, could 
hnrdly have been less than sixty miles from the city. The border of Goshen 
nearest to Egypt must have been many miles distant. See " Exodus of the Is- 
raelites out of Egypt," an able article by Professor Robinson, in the Biblical 
Repository for October, 1832. 



57 

" The people among whom I am are six hundred thousand footmen, and 
thou hast said I will give them flesh that they may eat a whole month ; 
shall the flocks and the herds be slain for them to sujice them." As 
these six hundred thousand were only the men " from twenty years old 
and upward, that were able to go forth to war," Ex. i. 45, 46 ; the 
whole number of the Israelites could not have been less than three mil- 
lions and a half. Flocks and herds to " sufiiee" all these for food, might 
surely be called " very much cattle." 5. T hey had their own form of 
government, and preserved their tribe and family divisions, and their in- 
ternal organization throughout, though still a province of Egypt, and tri- 
butary to it. Ex. ii. 1 ; xii. 19, 21 ; vi. 14, 25 ; v. 19 ; iii. 16, 19. 6. 
They had in a considerable measure, the disposal of their oivn time. Ex. 
iii. 16, 18 ; xii. 6 ; ii. 9 ; and iv. 27, 29 — 31. They seem to liave prac- 
tised the fine arts. Ex. xxxii. 4 ; xxxv. 22, 35. 7. They were all armed. 
Ex. xxxii. 27. 8. They held their possessions independently, and the 
Egyptians seem to have regarded them as inviolable. No intimation is 
given that the Egyptians dispossessed them of their habitations, or took 
away their flocks, or herds, or crops, or implements of agriculture, or 
any article of property. 9. All the females seem to have known 
something of domestic refinements. They were familiar with in- 
struments of music, and skilled in the working of fine fabrics. 
Ex. XV. 20 ; xxxv. 25, 26 ; and both males and females were 
able to read and write. Deut. xi. 18 — 20 ; xvii. 19 ; xxvii. 3. 
10. Service seems to have been exacted from none but adult males. 
Nothing is said from which the bond service of females could be in- 
ferred ; the hiding of Moses three months by his mother, and the 
payment of wages to her by Pharaoh's daughter, go against such a 
supposition. Ex. ii. 29. 11. Their food was abundant and of great 
variety. So far from being fed upon a fixed allowance of a single arti- 
cle, and hastily prepared, " they sat by the flesh-pots," and " did eat 
bread to the full." Ex. xvi. 3 ; and their bread was prepared with 
leaven. Ex. xii. 15, 39. They ate " the fish freely, the cucumbers, 
and the melons, and the leeks, and the onions, and the garlic." Num. 
xi. 4, 5 ; XX. 5. Probably but a small portion of the people were in 
the service of the Egyptians at any one time. The extent and variety 
of their own possessions, together with such a cultivation oi their 
crops as would provide them with bread, and such care of iheir im- 
mense flocks and herds, as would secure their profitable increase, must 
have kept at home the main body of the nation. During the plague ot 
darkness, God informs us that " all the children of Israel had light in 
their dwellings." We infer that they were there to enjoy it. See also 
S 



58 

Ex. ix. 26. It seems improbable that the making of brick, tlie only 
service named during the latter part of their sojourn in Egypt, could 
have furnished permanent employment for the bulk of the nation. See 
also Ex. iv. 29 — 31. Besides, when Eastern nations employed tribu- 
taries, it was as now, in the use of the levy, requiring them to furnish 
a given quota, drafted off periodically, so that comparatively but a 
small portion of the nation would be absent at any one time. The adult 
males of the Israelites were probably divided into companies, which re- 
lieved each other at stated intervals of weeks or months. It might 
have been during one of these periodical furloughs from service that 
Aaron performed the journey to Horeb. Ex. iv. 27. At the least 
calculation this journey must have consumed eight weeks. Probably 
one-fifth part of the proceeds of their labor was required of the Israel, 
ites in common with the Egyptians. Gen. xlvii. 24, 26. Instead of 
taking it from their crops, (Goshen being better for pasturage) they ex- 
acted it of them in brick making ; and labor might have been exacted 
only from the poorer Israelites, the wealthy being able to pay their 
tribute in money. The fact that all the elders of Israel seem to have 
controlled their own time, (See Ex. iv. 29 ; iii. 16 ; v. 20,) favors the 
supposition. Ex. iv. 27, 31. Contrast this bondage of Egj-pt with 
American slavery. Have our slaves " flocks and herds even very 
much cattle ?" Do they live in commodious houses of their own, 
« sit by the flesh-pots," " eat fish freely," and " eat bread to the full" ? 
Do they live in a separate community, in their distinct tribes, under 
their own rulers, in the exclusive occupation of an extensive tract of 
country for the culture of their crops, and for rearing immense herds of 
their own cattle — and all these held inviolable by their masters ? Are 
our female slaves free from exactions of labor and liabilities of out- 
rage ? or when employed, are they paid wages, as was the Israelitish 
woman by the king's daughter ? Have they the disposal of their own 
time, and the means for cultivating social refinements, for practising 
the fine arts, and for personal improvement? The Israelites tin- 
der THE BONDAGE OF EgYPT, ENJOYED ALL THESE RIGHTS AND 

PRIVILEGES. True, " all the service wherein they made them serve 
was with rigor." But what was this when compared with the inces- 
sant toil of American slaves ; the robbery of all their time and earn- 
ings, and even the '' power to own any thing, or acquire any thing ?" 
a "quart of corn a-day," the legal allowance of food!* their only 

* See law of North Carolina, Haywood's Manual 524-5. To show that 
slaveholders are not better than their laws. We give a few testimonies. Rev. 
Thomas Clay, of Georgia, (a slaveholder,) in an address before the Georgia 



59 

clothing for one half the year, " one shirt and one pair of panta- 



presbytery, in 1834, speaking of the slave's allowance of food, says : — " The 
quantity allowed by custom is a. feck of corn a week." 

The Maryland Journal and Baltimore Advertiser of May 30, 1788, says, a 
single peck of corn a week, or the like measure of rice, is the ordinary quantity 
of provision for a hard-%oorking slave; to which a small quantity of meat is 
occasionally, though rarely, added." 

The Gradual Emancipation Society of North Carolina, in their Report for 
1836, signed Moses Swaim, President, and William Swaim, Secretary, says, 
in describing the condition of slaves in the Eastern part of that State, " The 
master puts the unfortunate wretches upon short allowances, scarcely sufficient 
for their sustenance, so that a great po.rt oi \h<iva. go half naked and half starved 
much of the lime." See Minutes of the American Convention, convened in 
Baltimore, Oct. 25, 1826. 

Rev. John Rankin, a native of Tennessee, and for many years a preacher ia 
slave states, says of the food of slaves, " It often happens that what will ba'rely 
keep them alive, is all that a cruel avarice will allow them. Hence, in sopae 
instance;, their allowance has been reduced to a single pint of corn each, during 
the day and night. And some have no better allowance than a small poriion of 
cotton seed ; while perhaps they are not permitted to taste meat so much as 
once in the course of seven years. Thousands of them are pressed with the gnaw- 
ing s of cruel hunger during their %ohole lives y Rankin's Letters on Slavery, 
pp. 57, 58. 

Hon. Robert J. TurnbuU, of Charleston, S. C, a slaveholder, says, "The 
subsistence of the slaves consists, from March until August, of corn ground 
into grits, or meal, made into what is called hovrivy, or baked into corn bread. 
The other six mouths, they are fed upon the sweet potatoe. Meat, when given, 
is only by way oi indulgence or favor." See " Refutation of the Calumnies cir- 
culated against the Southern and Western States'' by a South Carolinian. 
Charleston, 1822. 

Asa A. Stone, a theological student, residing at Natchez, Mississippi, wrote 
a letter to the editor of the New York Evangelist in 1835, in which he says, 
" On almost every plantation, the h.'nii- suffer more or less from hunger at 
some seasons of almost every year. There is always a good deal of suffering I 
from hunger. On many plantations, and particularly in Louisiana, the slaves 
are in a condition ot abnost utter famishment during a great portion of the year." 

At the commencement of his letter, Mr. S. says," Intending, as I do, that my 
statements shall be relied on, and knowing that, should you thirik fit to publish 
this communication, they will come to i;i:s country, where their correctness 
may be tested by comparison with real life, I make them with the utmost care 
and precaution." 

President Edwards, the younger, in a sermon preached half a century ago, at 
New Haven, Conn., >ays, speaking of the allowance of food given to slaves — 
" They are supplied with barely enough to keep them from starving." 

In the debate on the Missouri question in the U. S. Congress, 1819—20, the 
admission of Missouri to the Union, as a slave state, was urged, among other 
grounds as a measure of humanity to the slaves of the south. Mr. Smyili a mem- 



60 



loons !"* two hours and a half only, for rest and refreshment in the 
twenty-four If — their dwellings, hovels, unfit for human residence, 



ber of Congress, from "Virginia, and a large slaveholder, said, " The plan of our 
opponents seems to be to confine the slave population to the southern states, to the 
countries where sugar, cotton, and tobacco are cultivated. But, sir, by confining 
the slaves to a pan of the country where crops are raised for exportation, and the 
bread and meat are purchased, you doom them to scarcity and hunger. Is it not 
obvious that the way to render their situation more comfortable is to allow 
them to be taken where there is not the same motive to force the slave to inces- 
sant TOTL that there is in the country where cotton, sugar, and tobacco are 
raised for exportation. It is proposed to hem in the blacks where they are hard 
WORKED and ill fed, that they may be rendered unproductive and the race be 
prevented from increasing. * * * The proposed measure would be extreme 
CRUELTY to the blacks. * * * You would * * * doom them to scarcity 
and HARD LABOR."— [Speech of Mr. Smyth, of Va., Jan. 28, 1820.]— See National 
Intielligencer. 

* See law of Louisiana, Martin's Digest, 6, 10. Mr.Bouldin, a Virginia slave- 
holder, in a speech in Congress, Feb. 16, 1835, (see National Intelligencer of 
that date,) said " he knew that many negroes had died from exposure to wea- 
ther." Mr. B. adds, "they are clad in a flimsy fabric that will turn neither 
wind nor water." 

Rev. John Rankin says, in his Letters on slavery, page 57, " In every slave- 
holding state, many slaves sniffer extremely , both while they labor and while they 
sleep, for want of clothing lo keep them warm. Often they are driven through 
frost and snow without either stocking or shoe, until the path they tread is 
died with their blood. And when they return to their miserable huts at night, 
they find not, there the means of comfortable rest; but on the cold ground they 
must lie without covering, and shiver while they slumber." 

t See law of Louisiana, act of July 7, 1806, Martin's Digest, 6, 10—12. The 
law of South Carolina permits the master to covipel his slaves to work fifteen 
hours in the twenty-four, in summer, and fourteen in the winter — which would 
be in winter, from daybreak in the morning until fonr hours after sunset ! — 
See 2 Brevard's Digest, 243. The pre;\mble of this law commences thus : 
" Whereas, many owners of slaves do confine them so closely to hard labor that 
they havenot sufficient time for riaturalrest : be it therefore enacted," &c. In a 
work entitled " Travels in Louisiana in 1802," translated from the French, by 
John Davis, is the following testimony under this head : — 

" The labor of Slaves in Louisiana is not severe, unless it be at the rolling 
of sugars, an interval of from two to three months, then they work doth nisht and 
day. Abridged of their sleep, they scarce retire to rest during the whole 
period." See page 81. On the 87th page of the same work, the writer says, 
" Both in summer and ivinter the slaves must be i/t the field by i\\Q first damn of 
day." And yet he says, " the labor of the slave is not severe, except at the roll- 
ing of sugars !" The work abounds in eulogies of slavery. 

In the " History of South Carolina and Georgia," vol. 1, p. 120, is ihe fol- 
lowing: " i*?*) laborious is the task of raising, beaiing, and cleaninjr rice that 



61 



with but one apartmeut, where both sexes and all ages herd promis- 
cuously at night, like the beasts of the field.* Add to this, the igno- 
ranee, and degradation ;f the daily sunderings of kindred, the revelries 



had it been possible to obtain European servants in sufficient numbers, thovr 
sands and tens of thousands must have perished." 

In an article on the agriculture of Louisiana, published in the second num- 
ber of the " Western Review" is the following:—" The work is admitted to be 
severe for the hands, (slaves) requiring, when the process of making sugar is 
commenced, to be pressed night and day." 

Mr. Philemon Bliss, of Ohio, in his letters from Florida, in 1835, says, "The 
negroes commence labor by daylight in the morning, and excepting the 
plowboys, who must feed and rest their horses, do not leave the field till 
dark in the evening." 

Mr. Stone, in his letter from Natchez, an extract of which was given above, 
says, " It is a general rule on all regular plantations, that the slaves rise in sea- 
son in the morning, to be in the field as soo7i as it is light enough for them to see to 
work, and remain there until it is so dark that they cannot see. This is the case 
at all seasons of the year." 

President Edwards, in the sermon already extracted from, says, " The slaves 
are kept at hard labor from five o^ clock in the morning till nine at night, except- 
ing time to eat twice during the day." 

Hon. R. J. TurnbuU, a South Carolina slaveholder, already quoted, speak- 
ing of the harvesting of cotton, says: " All the pregnant women even, on the 
plantation, and weak and sickly negroes incapable of other labor, aie then in 
requsition." * * * See " Refutation of the Calumnies circulated against 
the Southern and Western States," by a South Carolinian. 

* A late number of the " Western Medical Reformer" contains a dissertation 
by a Kentucky physician, on Cachexia Africana, or African consumption, in 
which the writer says — 

" This form of disease deserves more attention from the medical profession 
than it has heretofore elicited. Among the causes may be named the mode and 
manner in which the negroes live. They are crowded together in a small hid, 
sometimes having an imperfect, and sometimes no floor — and seldom raised from 
the ground, illy ventilated, and surrounded with filth. Their diet and cloth- 
ing, are also causes which might be enumerated as exciting agents. They 
live on a coarse, crude and unwholesome diet, and are imperfectly clothed, 
both summer and winter ,• sleeping upon filthy and frequently damp beds." 

Hon. R. J. TurnbuU, of South Carolina, whose testimony on another point 
has been given above, says of the slaves, that they live iu.^^ clay cabins, with clay 
chimneys," &c. Mr. Clay, a Georgia slaveholder, from whom an extract 
has been given already, says, speaking of the dwellings of the slaves, " Too 
many individuals of both sexes are crowded into one house, and the proper se- 
paration of apartments cannot be observed. That the slaves are insensible to the 
evils arising from it, does not in the least lessen the unhappy consequences." 
Clay's Address before the Presbytery of Georgia. — P. 13. 

■f Re^. C. C. Jones, lateof Georgia, now Professor in the Theological Semi- 
nary at Columbia, South. Carolina, made a report before the presbytery of 



62 

of lust, the lacerations and baptisms of blood, sanctioned by law, and 
patronized by public sentiment. What was the bondage of Egypt 



Georgia, in 1833, on the moral condition of the slave population, which re- 
port was published under the direction of the presbytery. In that report Mr. 
Jones says, " They, the slaves, are shut out from our sympathies and efforts as 
immortal beings, and are educated and disciplined as creatures of profit, and of 
profit only, for this world." 

In a sermon preached by Mr. Jones, before two associations of planters, in 
Georgia, in 1831, speaking of the slaves he says, " They are a nation of hea- 
then in our very midst." " What have we done for our poor negroes 1 With 
shame we must confess that we have done nothing !" " How can you pray for 
Christ's kingdom to come while yon are neglecting a people perishing for lack 
of vision around your very doors." " We withhold the Bible from our servants 
and keep them in ignorance of it, while we laill not use the means to have it 
read and explained to them." Jones' Sermon, pp. 7, 9. 

An oflicial repoit of the Presbyterian Synod of South Carolina and Georgia, 
adopted at its session in Columbia, S. C, and published in the Charleston Ob- 
server of March 23, 1834, speaking of the slaves, says, " There are over (wo 
millions o{ human beings, in the condition of heathen, and, in some respects, in 
a worse condition !" * * * " From long continued and close obs jrvation, 
we believe that their moral and religious condition is such, as that they may 
justly be considered the heathen of this Christian country, and will bear compa- 
rison icith heathen in any country in the world." * * * The negroes are des- 
titute of the privileges of the gospel, and ever will be under the present state of 
things." Report, &c., p. 4. 

A writer in the Church Advocate, published in Lexington, Ky., says, " The 
poor negroes are left in the ways of spiritual darkness, no efforts are being 
made for their enlightenment, no seed is being sown, nothing but a moral wil- 
derness is seen, over which the soul sickens — the heart of Christian sympathy 
bleeds. Here nothing is presented but a moral waste, as extensive as our injlu 
ence, as appalling as the valley of death." 

The following is an extract of a letter from Bishop Andrew of the Metho- 
dist Episcopal Church, to Messrs. Garrit and Maflit, editors of the " Western 
Methodist," then published at Nashville, Tennessee. 

" Augusta, Jan. 2!), 1835. 
" The Christians of the South owo a heavy debt to slaves on their planta- 
tions, and the ministers of Christ especially are debtors to the whole slave 
population. I tear a cry goes up to heaven on this subject against us; and 
how, I ask, shall the scores who have left the ministry of the Word, that they 
may make corn and cotton, and buy and sell, and get gain, meet this cry at the 
bar of God 1 and what shall the hundieds of money-making and money-loving 
masters, who have grown rich by the toil and sweat of their slaves, and Ze/l 
their souls to perish, s^y when they go with them to the judgment of the great 
day V 

"The Kentucky Union for the moral and religious improvement of the co 
lorcd race,"- -an association composed of some of the most influential ministers 



63 

when compared with this? And yet for her oppression of the poor, 
God smote her with plagues, and trampled her as the mire, till she 
passed away in his wrath, and the place that knew her in her pride, 
knew her no more. Ah ! "I have seen the afflictions of my people, 
and I have heard their groanings, and am come down to deliver them." 
He did come, and Egypt sank a ruinous heap, and her blood closed 
over her. If such was God's retribution for the oppression of 
heathen Egypt, of how much sorer punishment shall a Christian peo- 
ple be thought worthy, who cloak with religion a system, in compari- 
son with which the bondage of Egypt dwindles to nothing ? Let 



and laymen of Kentucky, says in a general circular to the religious public, 
" To the fenaale character among the black population, we cannot allude but 
with feelings of the bitterest shaoe. A similar condition of moral pollution, and 
utter disregard of a pure and virtuou-s reputation, is to be found on\y without tke 
pale of Christendom. That such a state of society should exist in a Christian 
nation, without calling forth any particular attention to its existence, though 
ever before our eyes and in our families, is a moral phenomenon at once unac- 
countable and disgraceful." 

Rev. James A. Thome, a native of Kentucky, and still residing there, said 
in a speech in New York, May 1834, speaking of licentiousness among the 
slaves, " I would not have you fail to understand that this is a general evil. 
Sir, what I now say, I say from deliberate conviction of its truth ; that the 
slave states are Sodoms, and almost every village family is a brothel. (In this, 
I refer to the inmates of the kitchen, and not to the whites.)" 

A writer in the " "Western Luminary," published in Lexington, Ky., made 
the following declaration to the same point in the number of that paper for 
May 7, 1835; " There is one topic to which I will allude, which will serve to 
establish the heathenism of this population. I allude to the universal Lic;m- 
TiocsNEss which prevails. Chastity is no virtue among them — its violation nei- 
ther injures female character in their own estimation, or that of their master 
or mistress — no instruction is ever given, no censure pronounced. I speak not 
of the world. I speak of Christian families generally." 

Rev. Mr. Converf=e, long a resident of Virginia, and agent of the Coloni- 
zation Society, said, in a sermon before the Vt. C. S.— "Almost nothing 
is done to instruct the slaves in the principles and duties of the Christian reli- 
gion. * * * The majority are emphatically heathens. * * Pious masters 
(with some honorable exceptions) are criminally negligent of giving religious 
instruction to their slaves. * * * They can and do instruct their own chil- 
dren, and perhaps their house servants; while those called " field hands" live, 
and labor, and die, without being told by their fious masters (1) that Jesus 
Christ died to save sinners." 

The page is already so loaded with references that we forbear. For testi- 
mony from the mouths of slaveholders to the terrible lacerations and other 
nameless outrages intlicted on the slaves, the reader is referred to the number 
.-.f the Anti-Slavery Record for Jan. 1837. 



64 



those believe who can, that God commissioned his people to rob 
others of all their rights, while he denounced against them wrath to 
the uttermost, if they practised the far lighter oppression of Eg>-pt— 
which robbed its victims of only the least and cheapest of their 
rights, and left the females unplundered even of these. What ! Is God 
divided against himself? When He had just turned Egypt into a 
funeral pile ; while his curse yet blazed upon her unburied dead, and 
his bolts still hissed amidst her slaughter, and the smoke of her tor- 
ment went upwards because she had "robbed the poor," did He 
license the victims of robbery to rob the poor of all? As Law- 
giver, did he create a system tenfold more grinding than that for which 
he had just hurled Pharaoh headlong, and overwhelmed his princes 
and his hosts, till " hell was moved to meet them at their coming ?" 

We now proceed to examine the various objections which will doubt- 
less be set in array against all the foregoing conclusions. 

OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 

The advocates of slavery find themselves at their wit's end in 
pressing the Bible into their service. Every movement shows them hard 
pushed! Their ever- varying shifts, their forced constructions and blind 
guesswork, procla.'.i both their cause desperate, and themselves. 
Meanwhile their invocations for help to " those good old slaveholders 
and patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,"* sent up without ceas- 



*The Presbytery of Harmony, South Carolina, at their meeting in Wains- 
borough, S. C, Oct. 28, 1836, appointed a special committee to report on sla- 
very. The following resolution is a part of the report adopted by the Pres- 
bytery. , , 

" Resolved That slavery has existed from the days ot those good old slave- 
holders and'patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, who are now in the king- 
dom of Heaven." , ,,. J.- 
Abraham receives abundant honor at the hands ol slave-holding divines. 
Not because he was the " father of the faithful," forsook home and country for 
the truth's sake, was the mosi eminent preacher and practiccr of righteousness 
in his day ; nay, verily, for all this he gets faint praise ; but then he had ser- 
vants BOUGHT WITH MONEY ! ! !" This is thc fmishing touch of his character, 
and its effect on slaveholders is electrical. Prose fledges into poetry, cold com- 
pliments warm into praise, eulogy rarifies into panegyric and goesulTin rhap- 
sody In their ecstacies over Abraham, Lsaac's paramount claims to their 
homa-c are lamentably lost sight of. It is quite unaccountable, that in their 
manifold o-lings over Abraham's " servants bought with money," no slave- 
holder iS ever caught casting loving side-g'.ancrs at Gen. xxvii. 29, 37, where 
Isaac, addressing Jacob, says, " Be lord over thy brethren and let thy mother s 



66 



ing from the midst of their convulsions, avail as little as did the screams 
and lacerations of the prophets of Baal to bring an answer of fire. The 
Bible defences thrown around slavery by the professed ministers of the 
Gospel, do so torture common sense, Scripture, and historical facts it 
were hard to tell whether absurdity, fatuity, ignorance, or blasphemy, 



sons how down to thee." And afterwards, addressing Esau, he says, speaking 
of the birth-right immunities confirmed to Jacob, "Behold I have made him 
thy Lord and all his brethren have I given to him for servants "' 

Here is a charter for slaveholding, under the sign manual of that " good old 
slaveholder and patriarch, Isaac." Yea, more— a " Divine Warrant" for a 
father holding his children as slaves and bequeathing them as property to his 
heirs ! Better still, it proves that the favorite practice amongst our slavehold. 
ers of bequeathing their colored children to those of a different hue, was a " Di- 
vine institution," for Isaac " gave" Esau, who was " red all over," to Jacob, 
" as a servant." Now gentlemen, " honor to whom honor." Let Isaac no 
longer be stinted of the glory that is his due as the great prototype of that " pe- 
culiar domestic institution," of which you are eminent patrons, that nice discri- 
mination, by which a father, in his will, makes part of his children property, 
and the rest, their proprietors, whenever the propriety of such a disposition 
is indicated! as in the case of Jacob and Esau, by the decisive tokens of color 
and HAIR, (for, to show that Esau was Jacob's rightful property after he was 
" given to him" by Isaac " for a servant," the difference in hair as well as co- 
lor, is expressly stated by inspiration !) 

One prominent feature of patriarchal example has been quite overlooked by 
slaveholders. We mean the special care of Isaac to inform Jacob that those 
"given to him as servants" were "his BRETHREN," (twice repeated.) The deep 
veneration of slaveholders for every thing patriarchal, clears them from all 
suspicion of designedly neglecting this authoritative precedent, and their ad- 
mirable zeal to perpetuate patriarchal fashions, proves this seeming neglect, a 
mere oversight: and is an all-sufficient guarantee that henceforward they will 
religiously illustrate in their own practice, the beauty of this hitherto neglected 
patriarchal usage. True, it would be an odd codicil to a will, for a slavehold- 
er after bequeathing to some of his children, all his slaves, to add a supple- 
ment, informing them that such and such and such of them were \he\t b rothers 
and sisters. Doubtless it would be at first a sore trial also, but what pious 
slaveholder would not be sustained under it by the reflection that he was hum- 
bly following in the footsteps of his illustrious patriarchal predecessors! 

Great reformers must make great sacrifices, and if the world is to be brought 
back to the purity of patriarchal times, upon whom will the ends of the earth 
come, to whom will all trembling hearts and failing eyes .spontaneously turn as 
leaders to conduct the forlorn hope through the wilderness to that promised 
land, if not to slaveholders, those disinteres ed pioneers whose self-denying 
labors have founded far and wide the "patriarchal institution" of concubin- 
age, and through evil report and good report, have faithfully stamped their own 
image and superscription, in variegated hues, upon the faces of a swarming 
progeny from generation to generation. 

V 



66 

predominates, In the compound ; each strives so lustily for the masteiy, 
it may be set down a drawn battle. How often has is been bruited 
that the color of the negro is the Cain-mark, propagated downward. 
Cain's posterity started an opposition to the ark, forsooth, and rode out 
the flood with flying streamers ! How could miracle be more worthily 
employed, or better vindicate the ways of God to man than by pointing 
such an argument, and filling out for slaveholders a Divine title- 
deed ! 

Objection 1. " Cursed be Canaan, a servant of servants sMIJ he he 
unto his brethren.^' Gen. ix. 25. 

This prophecy of Noah is the vade mecum of slaveholders, and they 
never venture abroad without it ; it is a pocket-piece for sudden occa- 
sion, a keepsake to dote over, a charm to spell-bind opposition, and a 
magnet to draw to their standard " whatsoever worketh abomination 
or maketh a lie." But " cursed be Canaan " is a poor drug to ease a 
throbbing conscience — a mocking lullaby to unquiet tossings. Those 
who justify negro slavery by the curse on Canaan, assume as usual all 
the points in debate. 1. That slavery was prophesied, rather than 
mere service to others, and individual bondage rather than national 
subjection and tribute. 2. That the prediction of crime justifies it ; or 
at least absolves those whose crimes fulfil it. How piously the Pha- 
raohs might have quoted the prophecy, " Thy seed shall he a stranger in 
a land that is not theirs, and they shall affiict them four hundred years.'' 
And then, what saints were those that crucified the Lord of glory ! 
3. That the Africans are descended from Canaan. Africa was peo- 
pled from Eg}^pt and Ethiopia, which countries were settled by Miz- 
raim and Cush. For the location and boundaries of Canaan's pos- 
terity, see Gen. x. 15 — 19. So a prophecy of evil to one people, is 
quoted to justify its infliction upon another. Perhaps it may be argued 
that Canaan includes all Ham's posterity. If so, the prophecy is yet 
unfulfilled. The other sons of Ham settled Egypt and Assyria, and, 
conjointly with Shem, Persia, and afterward, to some extent, the Gre- 
cian and Roman empires. The history of these nations gives no veri- 
fication of the prophecy. Whereas, the history of Canaan's descend- 
cnts for more than three thousand years, is a record of its fulfilment. 
First, they were put to tribute by the Israelites ; then by the Medes 
and Persians ; then by the Macedonians, Grecians and Romans, sue. 
cessively ; and finally, were subjected by the Ottoman dynasty, where 
they yet remain. Thus Canaan has lieen for ages the servant mainly of 
Shem and Japhet, and secondarily of the other sons of Ham. It may still 
be objected, that though Canaan alone is nained, yet the 22d and 24th 



67 

verses show the posterity of Ham in general to be meant. " And Ham, 
the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two 
brethren without." " And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what 
his YOUNGER son had done unto him, and said," &c. It is argued that 
this " younger son " cannot be Canaan, as he was the grandson of 
Noah, and therefore it must be Ham. We answer, whoever that 
" younger son " was, Canaan alone was named in the curse. Besides, 
the Hebrew word Ben, signifies son, grandson, or any one of the pos- 
terity of an individual.* " Know ye Laban, the son (grandson) of 
Nahor ?" Gen. xxix. 5. Mephibosheth the son (grandson) of Saul." 
2 Sam. xix. 24 ; 2 Sam. ix. 6. " The driving of Jehu the son (grand- 
son) of Nimshi." 2 Kings ix. 20. See also Ruth iv. 17; 2 Sam. 
xxi. 6 ; Gen. xxxi. 55. Shall we forbid the inspired writer to use the 
same word when speaking of Noah's grandson ? Further, Ham was 
not the "younger son." The order of enumeration makes him the 
second son. If it be said that Bible usage varies, the order of birth 
not always being observed in enumerations ; the reply is, that, enume- 
ration in that order, is the rule, in any other order the exception. Be- 
sides, if a younger member of a family takes precedence of older ones 
in the family record, it is a mark of pre-eminence, either in endow- 
ments, or providential instrumentality. Abraham, though sixty years 
younger than his eldest brother, stands first in the family genealogy. 
Nothing in Ham's history shows him pre-eminent ; besides, the He- 
brew word hdkkdtdn rendered " the younger," means the little, small. 
The same word is used in Isa. Ix. 22. '• A little one shall become 
a thousand." Isa. xxii. 24. "All vessels of small quantity." Ps. 
cxv. 13. " He will bless them that fear the Lord both small and great." 
Ex. xviii, 22. " But every small matter they shall judge." It would 
be a literal rendering of Gen. ix. 24, if it were translated thus, " when 
Noah knew what his little son,"* or grandson (Beno hdkkdtdn) " had 
done unto him, he said cursed be Canaan," &c. Further, even if 
the Africans were the descendants of Canaan, the assumption that their 
enslavement fulfils this prophecy, lacks even plausibility, for, only a frac- 
tion of the inhabitants of Africa have at any time been the slaves of other 
nations. If the objector say in reply, that a large majority of the Afri- 
cans have always been slaves at home, we answer : It is false in point 



* So av, the Hebrew word for father, signifies any ancestor, however remote. 
2 Chron. xvii. 3; xxviii. 1; xxxiv. 2; Dan. v. 2. 

* The French follows the same analogy ; grandson being petit fits (little son,) 



68 

of fact, though zealously bruited often to serve a turn ; and if it were 
true, how does it help the argument 1 The prophecy was, " Cursed be 
Canaan, a servant of servants shall he be unto Aw brethren.," not unto 
himself! 

Objection II. — " If a man smite his servant or his maid mth a rod, 
and he die under his hand, he shall surely he punished. Notwithstand- 
ing, if he continue a day or two, he slmll not he punished, for he is his 
money." Ex. xxi. 20, 21. What was the design of this regulation? 
Was it to grant masters an indulgence to beat servants with impunity, 
and an assurance, that if they beat them to death, the offence should 
not be capital ? This is substantially what commentators tell us. 
What Deity do such men worship ? Some blood-gorged Moloch, en- 
throned on human hecatombs, and snuffing carnage for incense ? Did 
He who thundered from Sinai's flames, " Thou shalt not kill," offer 
a bounty on murder ? Whoever analyzes the Mosaic system, will 
often find a moot court in session, trying law points, settling definitions, 
or laying down rules of evidence. Num. xxxv. 10 — 22 ; Deut. xix. 4 
— 6 ; Lev. xxiv. 19—22 ; Ex. xxi. 18, 19, are some of the cases stat- 
ed, with tests furnished the judges by which to detect the intent, in ac- 
tions brought before them. Their ignorance of judicial proceedings, 
laws of evidence, &c., made such instructions necessary. The detail 
gone into, in the verses quoted, is manifestly to enable them to get at 
the motive and find out whether the master designed to kill. 1. "If a 
man smite his servant with a rod." — The instrument used, gives a clue 
to the intent. See Num. xxxv. 16 — 18. A rod, not an axe, nor a 
sword, nor a bludgeon, nor any other death-weapon — hence, from the 
kind of instrument, no design to kill would be inferred ; for intent to 
kill would hardly have taken a rod for its weapon. But if the servant 
•' die under his hand," then the unfitness of the instrument, is point 
blank against him ; for, striking with a rod so as to cause death, pre- 
supposed very many blows and great violence, and this kept up till the 
death-gasp, showed an intent to kill. Hence " He shall surely be pun- 
ished." But if he continued a day or two, the length of time that he 
lived, the kind of instrument used, and the master's pecuniary interest 
in his life, ("he is his money,") all made a strong case of presumptive 
evidence, showing that the master did not design to kill. Further, the 
word ncikdm, here rendered jnmished, occurs thirty-five times in the 
Old Testament, and in almost every place is translated " avenge," in 
a few, "/o take vengeance,^'' or "to revenge," and in this instance alone, 
'■^punish." As it stands in our translation, the pronoun preceding it, 
refers to the master, whereas it should refer to the crime, and the word 



rendered punished, should have been rendered avenged. The meaning 
is this : If a man smite his servant or his maid with a rod, and he die 
under his hand, it (the death) shall surely be avenged, or literally, by 
avenging it shall he avenged ; that is, the death of the servant shall be 
avenged by the death of the master. So in the next verse, •' If he con- 
tinue a day or two," his death is not to be avenged by the death of the 
master, as in that case the crime was to be adjudged manslaughter, and 
not murder. In the following verse, another case of personal injury is 
stated, for which the injurer is to pay a sum of money ; and yet our 
translators employ the same phraseology in both places ! One, an in- 
stance of deliberate, wanton, kilHng by piecemeal ; the other, an ac- 
cidental, and comparatively slight injury — of the infiicter, in both cases, 
they say the same thing ! Now, just the discrimination to be looked 
for where God legislates, is marked in the original. In the case of 
the servant wilfully murdered. He says, " It (the death) shall surely be 
avenged," that is, the life of the wrong doer shall expiate the crime. 
The same word is used in the Old Testament, when the greatest 
wrongs are redressed, by devoting the perpetrators to destruction. In 
the case of the unintentional injury, in the following verse, God says, 
"He shall surely he fined, (dndsh.) "He shall pay as the judges de- 
termine." The simple meaning of the word andsh, is to lay a fine. 
It is used in Deut. xxii. 19 : " They shall amerce him in one hundred 
shekels," and in 2 Chron. xxxvi. 3 : "He condemned {inulcted) the 
land in a hundred talents of silver and a talent cf gold." That aveng. 
ing the death of the servant, was neither imprisonment, nor stripes, nor 
a fine, but that it was taking the master^ s life we infer, 1 . From the use 
of the word ndkdm. See Gen iv. 24 ; Josh. x. 13 ; Judg. xv. 7 ; xvi. 
28 ; 1 Sam. xiv. 24 ; xviii. 25 ; xxv. 31 ; 2 Sam. iv. 8 ; Judg. v. 2 ; 
1 Sam. xxv. 26 — 33. 2. From tlie express statute. Lev. xxiv. 17 : 
"He that killeth any man shall surely be put to death." Also, Num. 
xxxv. 30, 31 : " Whoso killeth any person, the murderer shall be put 
to death. Moreover, ye shall take no satisfaction for the life of a 
murderer which is guilty of death, but he shall surely be put to death." 
3. The Targum of Jonathan gives the verse thus, " Death by the sword 
shall surely be adjudged." The Targum of Jerusalem, "Vengeance 
shall be taken for him to the uttermost." Jarchi, the same. The Sa- 
maritan version: "He shall die the death." Again, the clause "for 
he is his money," is quoted to prove that the servant is his master's 
property, and therefore, if he died, the master was not to be punished. 
The assumption is, that the phrase, " he is his money," proves not only 
that the servant is worth money to the master, but that he is an article 



70 

of property. If the advocates of slavery insist upon taking this principle 
of interpretation into the Bible, and turning it loose, let them stand and 
draw in self-defence. If they endorse for it at one point, they must stand 
sponsors all around the circle. It will be too late to cry for quarter 
when its stroke clears the table, and tiltb them among the sweepings be- 
neath. The Bible abounds with such expressions as the following : " This 
(bread) is my body ;" " all they (the Israelites) are brass and tin ;" this 
(water) is the blood of the men who went in jeopardy of their lives ;" 
"the Lord God is a sun;" "the seven good ears are seven years ;" "the 
tree of the field is man's life ;" "God is a consuming fire ;" "he is 
his money," &c. A passion for the exact literalities of the Bible is 
too amiable, not to be gratified in this case. The words in the origi- 
nal are (Kdspo-hu,) "his silver is he." The objector's principle of in- 
terpretation is a philosopher's stone ! Its miracle touch transmutes 
five feet eight inches of flesh and bones into solid silver! Quite a 
permanent servant, if not so nimble withal — reasoning against '^for- 
ever," is forestalled henceforth, and, Deut. xxiii. 15, quite outwitted. 
The obvious meaning of the phrase, " He is his money," is, he is worth 
money to his master, and since, if the master had killed him, it would 
have taken money out of his pocket, the pecuniary Joss, the kind 
of instrument used, and the fact of his living sometime after the injury, 
(if the master meant to kill, he would be likely to do it while about it,) 
all together make a strong case of presumptive evidence clearing the 
master from intent to kill. But let us look at the objector's inferences. 
One is, that as the master might dispose of his property as he pleased, 
he was not to be punished, if he destroyed it. Whether the servant 
died under the master's hand, or after a day or two, he was equally his 
property, and the objector admits that in i^ne first case the master is to 
be " surely punished" for destroying his oum property ! The other in- 
ference is, that since the continuance of a day or two, cleared the mas- 
tor of intent to kill, the loss of the servant would be a sufficient punish- 
liicnt for inflicting the injury which caused his death. This inference 
makes the Mosaic law false to its own principles. A pecuniary loss 
was no part of the legal claim, where a person took the life of an- 
other. In such case, the law spurned money, whatever the sum, 
God would not cheapen human life, by balancing it with such a weight. 
" Ye shall take no satisfaction for the life of a murderer, but he 
shall surely be put to death." Num. xxxv. 31. Even in excusable 
homicide, where an axe slipped from the helve and killed a man, no 
sum of money availed to release from confinement in the city of refiige, 
until the death of the High Priest. Num. xxxv. 32. The doctrine 



71 

that the loss of the servant would be a penalty adequate to the desert 
of the master, admits his guilt and his desert of some punishment, 
and it prescribes a kind of punishment, rejected by the law, in all cases 
where man took the life of man, whether with or without intent to kill. 
In short, the objector annuls an integral part of the system — makes a 
new law, and coolly metes out such penalty as he thinks fit. Divine 
legislation revised and improved ! The master who struck out his 
servant's tooth, whether intentionally or not, was required to set him 
free. The pecuniary loss to tha master was the same as though he 
had killed him. Look at the two cases. A master beats his servant 
so that he dies of his wounds ; another accidentally strikes out his 
servant's tooth, — the pecuniary loss of both masters is the same. If the 
loss of the servant's services is punishment sutficient for the crime of 
killing him, would God command the same punishment for the acci- 
dental knocking out of a tooth ? Indeed, unless the injury was done 
inadvertently, the loss of the servant's services was only a part of the 
punishment — mere reparation to the individual for injury done ; the main 
punishment, that strictly judicial, was reparation to the community. To 
set the servant yree, and thus proclaim his injury, his right to redres;>, 
and the measure of it — answered not the ends of public justice. The 
law made an example of the offender, that " those that remain might 
hear and fear." " If a man cause a blemish in his neighbor, as he 
hath done, so shall it be done unto him. Breach for breach, eye for 
eye, tooth for tooth. Ye shall have one manner of law as well for the 
STRANGER as for one of your own country." Lev. xxiv. 19, 20, 22. 
Finally, if a master smote out his servant's tooth, the law smote out 
his tooth — thus redressing the public wrong ; and it cancelled the ser- 
vant's obligation to the master, thus giving some compensation for the 
injury done, and exempting him from perilous liabilities in future. 

Objection III. " Both thy bondmen and bondmaids which thou shah 
have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you, of them shall ye 
buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers 
that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that 
are loith you, which they begat in your land, and they shall be your j^osses- 
sion. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after 
you, to inherit them for a possession ; they shall be your bojidmcn forever.'" 
Lev. XXV. 44 — 46. 

The points in these verses, urged as proof, that the Mosaic system 
sanctioned slavery, are 1. The word " Bondmen." 2. " Buy." 3. 
" Inheritance and possession." 4. " Forever." 



72 

We will now ascertain what sanction to slavery is derivable from 

these terms. 

1. " Bondmen." The fact that servants from the heathen are called 
« hondmen," while others are called " servants," is quoted as proof 
that the former were slaves. As the caprices of King James' transla- 
tors were not inspired, we need stand in no special awe of them. The 
word here rendered bondmen is uniformly rendered servants else- 
where. The Hebrew word " ebedh," the plural of which is here trans- 
lated " b(md,nen," is often applied to Christ. " Behold my servant 
(bondman, slave?) whom I uphold." Isa. xlii. 1. " Behold my 
servant (Christ) shall deal prudently." Isa. lii. 13. " And he said it 
is a light thing that thou (Christ) shouldst be my servant." Isa. xllx. 6. 
" To a servant of rulers." Isa. xlix. 7. " By his knowledge shall 
my righteous sermni (Christ) justify many." Is. liii. U. Behold I 
will bring forth my servant the branch." Zech. iii. 8. In 1 Kings 
xii. 6, ll it is applied to King Rehoboam. " And they spake unto 
him, saying if thou wilt be a servant unto this people, then they will be 
thy servants forever." In 2 Chron. xii. 7, 8, 9, 13, to the king and 
all the nation. The word is used to designate those who perform ser- 
vice for individuals or families, about thirty-five times in the Old Tes- 
ament. To designate tributaries about twenty-five times. To desig- 
nate the subjects of government, about thirty-three times. To designate 
the worshippers both of the true God, and of false gods, about seventy 
times. It is also used in salutations and courteous addresses nearly 
one hundred times. In fine, the word is applied to all persons doing 
service for others, and that merely to designate them as the performers of 
such service, whatever it might be, or whatever the ground on which 
it might be rendered. To argue from the fact, of this word 
being used to designate domestic servants, that they were 
made servants by force, worked without pay, and held as ar- 
ticles of property, is such a gross assumption and absurdity as to 
make formal refutation ridiculous. We repeat what has been shown 
above, that the word rendered bondmen in Lev. xxv. 44, is used to 
point out persons rendering service for others, totally irrespective of 
the principle on which that service was rendered ; as is manifest from 
the fact that it is applied indiscriminately to tributaries, to domestics, to 
all the subjects of governments, to magistrates, to all governmental 
officers, to younger sons — defining their relation to the first born, who 
is called lord and ruler— io prophets, to kings, and to the Messiah. 
To art^uc from the meaning of the word ebedh as used in the Old Tes- 
lament, that those to whom it was applied rendered service against 



I 



their will, and without pay, does violence to the scripture use of the 
term, sets at nought all rules of interpretation, and outrages common 
sense. If any inference as to the meaning of the term is to be drawn 
from the condition and relations of the various classes of persons, to 
whom it is applied, the only legitimate one would seem to be, that the 
term designates a person who renders service to another in return for 
something of value received from him. The same remark applies to 
the Hebrew verb dbddh, to serve, answering to the noun ebedli (ser- 
vant). It is used in the Old Testament to describe the serving of 
tributaries, of worshippers, of domestics, of Levites, of sons to a father, 
of younger brothers to the elder, of subjects to a ruler, of hirelings, of 
soldiers, of public officers to the government, of a host to his guests, 
&c. Of these it is used to describe the serving of worshippers more 
than forty times, of tributaries, about thirty five, and of servants or 
domestics, about ten. 

If the Israelites not only held slaves, but multitudes of them, if Abra- 
ham had thousands, and if they abounded under the Mosaic system, 
why had their language no word that meant slave ? That la;iguage 
must be wofully poverty-stricken, which has no signs to represent the 
most common and familiar objects and conditions. To represent by 
the same word, and without figure, property, and the owner of that 
property, is a solecism. Ziba was an " ebedh," yet he " owned" (!) 
twenty ebedhs ! In our language, we have both servant and slave. 
Why 1 Because we have both the things, and need signs for them. If 
the tongue had a sheath, as swords have scabbards, we should have 
some name for it : but our dictionaries give us none. Why ? Be 
cause there is no such thing. But the objector asks, " Would not the 
Israelites use their word ebedh if they spoke of the slave of a heathen ?" 
Answer. Their naizonaZ servants or tributaries, are spoken of frequent, 
ly, but domestics servants so rarely, that no necessity existed, even if 
they were slaves, for coining a new word. Besides, the fact of their 
being domestics, under heathen laws andusages, proclaimed their liabili- 
ties ; their locality made a specific term unnecessary. But if the 
Israelites had not only servants, but a multitude of slaves, a word mean- 
ing slave, would have been indispensible for every day convenience. 
Further, the laws of the Mosaic system were so many sentinels on the 
outposts to warn off foreign practices. The border ground of Canaan, 
was quarantine ground, enforcing the strictest non-intercourse in 
usages between the without and the within. 

2. "Buy." The^wj/mgofservants, is discussed at length, pp. 17 — 23. 
To that discussion the reader is referred. We will add in this place 



74 

but a single consideration. This regulation requiring the Israelites to 
" 5mi/" servants of the heathen, prohibited their taking them without 
buying. Buying supposes two parties, a price demanded by one and 
paid by the other, and consequently, the consent of both buyer and 
seller, to the transaction. Of course the command to the Israelites to 
buy servants of the heathen, prohibited their getting them unless they 
first got somebody^ s consent to the transaction, and paid to somebody a 
fair equivalent. Now, who were these somebodies ? This at least is 
plain, they were not Israelites, but heathen. " Of them shall ye buy." 
Who then were these somebodies, whose right was so paramount, that 
their consent must be got and the price paid must go into their pockets 1 
Were they the persons themselves who became servants, or some other 
persons. *' Some other persons to be sure," says the objector, " the 
countrymen or the neighbors of those who become servants." Ah ! 
this then is the import of the Divine command to the Israelites. 

" When you go among the heathen round about to get a man to work 
for you, I straightly charge you to go first to his neighbors, get their con- 
sent that you may have him, settle the terms with them, and pay to them 
a fair equivalent. If it is not their choice to let him go, I charge you 
not to take him on your peril. If they consent, and you pay them the 
full value of his labor, then you may go and catch the man and drag 
him home with you, and make him work for you, and I will bless you 
in the work of your hands and you shall cat of the fat of the land. As 
to the man himself, his choice is nothing, and you need give him noth- 
ing for his work : but take care and pay his neighbors well for him, 
and respect their free choice in taking him, for to deprive a heathen 
man by force and without pay of the use of himself is well pleasing in 
;ny sight, but to deprive his heathen neighbors of the use of him i.si 
that abominable thing which my soul hateth." 

3. " Forever." This is quoted to prove that servants were to serve 
during their life time, and their posterity from generation to generation.* 
No such idea is contained in the passage. The word " forever," in- 
stead of defining the length of individual service, proclaims the perma- 
nence of the regulation laid down in the two verses preceding, namely, 
that their permanent domestics should be of the Strangers, and not of 
the Israelites ; it declares the duration of that general provision. As 
if God had said, " You shall always get yo\n- permanent laborers from 
the nations round about you ; your servants shall always be of that 

* One would think that the explicit testimony of our Lord should for ever 
forestall all cavil on this point. " The servant abidethnot in the house forever, 
but the Son, abideth ever." John viii. 35. 



75 

class of persons." As it stands in the original, it is plain — " Forever 
of them shall ye serve yourselves.^' This is the literal rendering. 

That ^'forever" refers to the permanent relations of a community, 
rather than to the services of individuals, is a fair inference from the 
form of ihe expression, " Both thy bondmen, &c., shall be of the heathen. 
Of them shall ye buy." " They shall be your possession." " They 
shall be your bondmen forever." " But over your brethren the chil- 
dren OF Israel," &c. To say nothing cf the uncertainty of these in- 
dividuals surviving those after whom they are to live, the language 
used applies more naturally to a body of people, than to individual ser- 
vants. Besides perpetual service cannot be argued from the term for- 
ever. The ninth and tenth verses of the same chapter limit it abso- 
lutely by the jubilee. " Then thou shalt cause the trumpet of the jubi- 
lee to sound * * througtiout all your land." " And ye shall 
proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants there- 
of." It may be objected that " inhabitants" here means Israelitish in- 
habitants alone. The command is, " Proclaim liberty throughout all 
the land unto all the inhabitants thereof." Besides, in the sixth verse, 
there is an enumeration of the different classes of the inhabitants, in 
which servants and Strangers are included ; and in all the regulations 
of the jubilee, and the sabbatical year, the Strangers are included in the 
precepts, prohibitions, and promises. Again : the year of jubilee was 
ushered in by the day of atonement. What did these institutions show 
forth 1 The day of atonement prefigured the atonement of Christ, and 
the year of jubilee, the gospel jubilee. And did they prefigure an atone- 
ment and a jubilee to Jews only ? Were they types of sins remitted, 
and of salvation proclaimed to the nation of Israel alone ? Is there no 
redemption for us Gentiles in these ends of the earth, and is our hope 
presumption and impiety ? Did that old partition wall survive the shock 
that made earth quake, and hid the sun, burst graves and rocks, and 
rent the temple veil ? and did the Gospel only rear it higher to thunder 
direr perdition from its frowning battlements on all without ? No ! 
The God of OUR salvation lives. " Good tidings of great joy shall be to 
all people." One shout shall swell from all the ransomed, " Thou 
hast redeemed us unto God by thy blood out of every kindred, and 
tongue, and people, and nation." 

To deny that the blessings of the jubilee extended to the servants from 
the Gentiles, makes Christianity Judaism.* It not only eclipses the 



• So far from the Strangers not being released by the proclamation of liberty 
on the morning of the jubilee, they were the only persons who were, ^5 a bod/y, 



76 

glory of the Gospel, but strikes out its sun. The refusal to release 
servants at the jubilee falsified and disannulled a grand leading type of 
the atonement, and was a libel on the doctrine of Christ's redemption. 
But even li forever did refer to rndividual service, we have ample pre- 
cedents for limiting the term by the jubilee. The same word defines 
the length of time which Jewish servants served who did not go out at 
the end of their six years' term. And all admit that they went out at 
the jubilee. Ex. xxi. 2—6 ; Deut. xv. 12—17. The 23d verse of the 
same chapter is quoted to prove that "forever" in the 46th verse ex- 
tends beyond the jubilee. " The land shall not be sold forever, for 
the land is mine" — since it would hardly be used in dlflferent senses in 
the same general connection. As forever, in the 46th verse, respects 
the general arrangement, and not individual service the objection does 
not touch the argument. Besides, in the 46th verse, the word used is 
Olam, meaning throughout the period^ whatever that may be. Where- 
as in the 23d verse, it is Tsemiihuth, meaning, a cutting off, or to he cut 
off ; and the import of it is, that the owner of an inheritance shall not 
forfeit his proprietorship of it ; though it may for a time pass from his 
control into the hands of his creditors or others, yet the owner shall 
be permitted to redeem it, and even if that be not done, it shall not be 
" cut off,'''' but shall revert to him at the jubilee. 

3. " Inheuitance and possession." " Ye shall take them as an 
INHERITANCE for your children after you to inherit them for a posses- 
sion. This, as has been already remarked refers to the nations, and 
not to the individual servants procured from the senations. The holding 
of servants as a po^^e^sion is discussed at large pp. 47 — 64. To what 
is there advanced we here subjoin a few brief considerations. We 
have already shown, that servants could not be held as a property -^os- 
session, and inheritance ; that they became such of their own accord, 
were paid wages, released from their regular labor nearly half the 
days in each year, thoroughly instructed and protected- in all their personal, 
social, and religious rights, equally with their masters. All remaining, 
after these ample reservations, would be small temptation, either to the 



released by it. The rule regulating the service of Hebrew servants was, " Six 
years shall he serve, and in the seventh year he shall go out free." The free 
holders who had " fallen into decay," and had in consequence mortgaged their 
inheritances to their more prosperous neighbors, and become in some sort their 
servants, were released by the jubilee, and again resumed their inheritances. 
This was the only class ol Jewish servants (and it could not have been numer- 
ous,) which was released by the jubilee; all others went out at the close of 
their six vears' term. 



77 

lust of power or of lucre ; a profitable " possession" and " inheritance," 
truly ! What if our American slaves were all placed in just such a 
condition ! Alas, for that soft, melodious circumlocution, " Our pecu- 
liar species of property !" Verily, emphasis would be cadence, and 
euphony and irony meet together ! What eager snatches at mere 
words, and bald techmcs, irrespective of connection, principles of con- 
struction, Bible usages, or limitations of meaning by other passages— and 
all to eke out such a sense cs sanctifies existing usages, thus making 
God pander for lust. The words nahal and nahala, inherit and inheri- 
tance, by no means necessarily signify articles of property. " The peo- 
pie answered the king and said, " we have none inheritance in the son 
of Jesse." 2 Chron. x. 16. Did they mean gravely to disclaim the 
holding of their king as an article o^ property ! " Children are an heri- 
tage (inheritance) of the Lord." Ps. cxxvii. 3. "Pardon our iniqui- 
ty, and take us for thine inheritance,^' Ex. xxxiv. 9. When God 
pardons his enemies, and adopts tJiem as children, does he make them 
articles of property 1 Are forgiveness, and chattel-making, syno- 
nymes? "/am their ^■?^Amtance." Ezek, xliv. 28. " I shall give thee 
the heathen for thine inheritance.^^ Ps. ii. 18. See also Deut. iv. 20 ; 
Josh. xiii. 33; Ps. Ixxxii. 8 ; Ixxviii. 62, 71 ; Prov. xiv. 18. 

The question whether the servants were a property-" f)o*se.mo/i," 
has been already discussed, pp. 47 — 64, we need add in this place 
but a word. As an illustration of the condition of servants from the 
heathen that were the " possession" of Israelitish families, and of the 
way in which they became servants, the reader is referred to Isa. xiv. 
1, 2. " For the Lord will have mercy on Jacob, and will yet choose 
Israel, and set them in their own land ; and the strangers will be pin- 
ed with them, and they shall cleave to the house of Jacob. And the 
people shall take them and bring them to their place, and the house of 
Israel shall possess them in the land of the Lord for servants and hand- 
maids ; and they shall take them captives, whose captives they were ; 
and they shall rule over the oppressors." 

We learn from these verses, 1st. That these servants which were to 
be " possessed^' by the Israelites, were to be "joined with them," i. e., 
become proselytes to their religion. 2d. Tiiat they should " cleave to 
the house of Jacob," i. e., that they would forsake their own people 
voluntarily, attach themselves to the Israelites as servants, and of their 
own free choice leave home and friends, to accompany them on their 
return, and to take up their permanent abode with them, in the same 
manner that Ruth accompained Naomi from Moab to the land of Israel, 
and that the " souls gotten" by Abraham in Padanaram, accompanied him 



T8 

when he left it and went to Canaan. " And the house of Israel shall 
possess them for servants," i. e. shall have them for servants. 

In the passage under consideration, " they shall be your possession" 
the original word translated " possession" is ahuzza. The same word 
is used in Gen. xlvii. 11. " And Joseph placed his father and his 
brethren, and gave them a possession in the land of Egypt." Gen. xlvn. 
11. In what sense was Goshen the possession of the Israelites ? An- 
swer, in the sense of having it to live in, not in the sense of having it as 
owners. In what sense were the Israelites to possess these nations, and 
take them as an inheritance for their children ? Answer, they possessed 
them as a permanent source of supply for domestic or household ser- 
vants. And this relation to these nations was to go down to posterity 
as a standing regulation, having the certainty and regularity of a de- 
scent by inheritance. The sense of the whole regulation may be given 
thus : " Thy permanent domestics, which thou shalt have, shall be of 
the nations that are round about you, of </ieffi shall ye buy male and 
female domestics." Moreover of the children of the foreigners that do 
sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are 
with you, which they begat in your land, and they shall be yourperma- 
neiit resource." " And ye shall take them as a perpetual source of 
supply to whom your children after you shall resort for servants. 
Always, of them shall ye serve yourselves." The design of the pas- 
sage is manifest from its structure. So far from being a permission to 
purchase slaves, it was a prohibition to employ Israelites for a certain 
term and in a certain grade of service, and to point out the class of per- 
sons from wliich they were to get their supply of servants, and the way 
in which they were to get them.* 

Objection IV. "7/ thy brother that dtoelleth by thee be waxen poor, 
and be sold unto thee, thou shalt not compel him to serve as a bond- 
servant, &t<< as an hired-serv;^nt, and as a sojourner shall he be 
with thee, and shall serve thee unto the year of jubilee: ' Lev. xxv. 39,40. 



♦ Rabbi Leeser, who translated from the German the work entitled " Instruc- 
tion in the Mosaic Religion" by Professor Jholson of the Jewish seminary at 
Frankfort-on-the-Main, in his comment on these verses, says, "It must be ob- 
served that it was prohibited to shbjkct a Stranger to slavery. The buying of 
slaves alone is permitted, but not stealing them." 

Now whatever we call that condition in which servants were, whether ser- 
vitude or slavery, and whatever we call the persons in that condition, whether 
servants or slaves, we have at all events, the testimony that the Israelites were 
' prohibited to sxibject a Stranger to" that condition, or in other words, the tree 
choice of the servant was not to be compelled. 



79 

As only one class is called " hired," it is inferred that servants of 
the other class were not paid for their labor. That God, while thun- 
dering anathemas against those who " used their neighbor's service 
without wages," granted a special indulgence to his chosen people 
to force others to work, and rob them of earnings, provided always, 
in selecting their victims, they spared " the gentlemen of property 
and standing," and pounced only upon the strangers and the common 
people. The inference that " hired" is synonymous with paid, and 
that those servants not called " hired," were not paid for their labor, is 
a mere assumption. The meaning of the English verb to hire, is to 
procure for a temporary use at a certain price — to engage a person to 
temporary service for wages. That is also the meaning of the He- 
brew word " saukar." It is not used when the procurement of per- 
manent service is spoken of. Now, we ask, would permanent 
servants, those who constituted a stationary part of the family, 
have been designated by the same term that marks temporary ser- 
vants ? The every-day distinctions in this matter, are familiar 
as table-talk. In many families the domestics perform only the re- 
gular work. Whatever is occasional merely, as the washing of ii 
family, is done by persons hired expressly for the purpose. The fa- 
miliar distinction between the two classes, is "servants," and " hir- 
ed help," (not ^ai(Z help.) jBo^A classes are ^airf. One is permament, 
and the other occasional and temporary, and therefore in this case 
called " hired."* A variety of particulars are recorded distinguishing 
hired from bought servants. 1. Hired servants were paid daily at 
the close of their work. Lev. xix. 13 ; Deut. xxiv. 14, 15 ; Job. vii. 
2 ; Matt. XX. 8. " Bought''^ servants were paid in advance, (a reason 
for their being called bought,) and those that went out at the seventh 



♦ To suppose a servant robbed of his earnings because he is not called a hired 
servant, is profound Induction ! If I employ a man at twelve dollars a month 
to work my farm, he is my " hired" man, but if I give him such a portioii of 
the crop, or in- other words, if he works my farm " on shares" every 
farmer knows that he is no longer called a " hired" man. Yet he works the 
same farm, in the same way, at the same times, and with Ihs same teams and 
tools ; and does the same amount of work in the year, and perhaps clears twenty 
dollars a month, instead of twelve. Now as he is no longer called " hired," and 
as he still works my farm, suppose my neighbors sagely infer, that since he is 
not my " hired" laborer, I rob him of his earnings, and with all the gravity of 
owls, pronounce their oracular decision, and hoot it abroad. My neighbors are 
deep divers ! like some theological professors, they go not only to the bottom but 
come up covered with the tokens. 



80 

year received a gratuity. Deut. xv. 12, 13. 2. The " hired" 
were paid in money, the " bought" received their gratuity, at least, in 
grain, cattle, and the product of the vintage. Deut. xv. 14. 
3. The " hired" lived in their own famihes, the " bought" were a part 
of their masters' families. 4. The " hired" supported their fami- 
lies out of their wages ; the " bought" and their families were support- 
ed by the master beside their wages. 5. Hired servants were expected 
to work more constantly, and to have more working hours in the day 
than the bought servants. This we infer from the fact, that " a hire- 
ling's day," was a sort of proverbial phrase, meaning a full day. No 
subtraction of time being made from it. So a hireling's year signifies an 
entire year without abatement. Job, vii. 1 ; xiv. 6 ; Isa. x\i. 14 ; xxi. 16. 
The " bought" servants, were, as a class, superior to the hired — were 
more trust-worthy, were held in higher estimation, had greater 
privileges, and occupied a more elevated station in society. 1, 
They were intimately incorporated with the family of the master, 
were guests at family festivals, and social solemnities, from which 
hired servants were excluded. Lev. xxii. 10, 1 1 ; Ex. xii. 43, 45. 
2. Their interests were far more identified with those of their masters' 
family. They were often, actually or prospectively, heirs of their 
masters' estates, as in the case of Eliezer, of Ziba, and the sons of 
Bilhah, and Zilpah. When there were no sons, or when they were 
unworthy, bought servants were made heirs. Prov. xvii. 2. We 
find traces of this usage in the New Testament. " But when the 
husband-men saw him, they reasoned among themselves saying, this 
is the heir, come let us kill him, that the inheritance may he. ours." 
Luke XX. 14. In no instance does a hired servant inherit his mas- 
ter's estate. 3. Marriages took place between servants and their 
master's daughters. " Sheshan had a servant, an Egyptian, whose 
name was Jarha. And Sheshan gave his daughter to Jarha his ser- 
want to wife." 1 Chron. ii. 34, 35. There is no instance of a hired 
servant forming such an alliance. 4. Bought servants and their 
descendants were treated with the same affection and respect as the 
other members of the family.* The treatment of Abraham's servants. 
Gen. xxiv. and xviii, 1 — 7 ; the intercourse between Gideon and Phu- 



* " For the purchased servant who i.-^ an Israelite, or proselyte, shall fare as his 
master. The master shall not eat fine bread, and his servant bread of bran. Nor 
yet drink old wine, and grive his servant new : nor sleep on soft pillows, and bed- 
ding, and his servant on straw. I say unto you, that he that gets a purchased 



81 

rah, Judg. vii. 10, 11 ; Saul and his servant, 1 Sam. ix. 5, 22 ; Jo- 
nathan and his servant, 1 Sam. xiv. 1 — 14, and Elisha and Gehazi are 
illustrations. The tenderness exercised towards home-born servants 
or the children of handmaids, and the strength of the tie that bound 
them to the family, are employed by the Psalmist to illustrate the re- 
gard of God for him, his care over him, and his own endearing relation 
to him, when in the last extremity he prays, " Save the son of thy 
handmaid.'" Ps. Ixxxvi. 16. So also in Ps. cxvi. 16. Oh Lord, truly I 
am thy servant ; I am thy servant, and the son of thy handmaid. Also, 
Jer. ii. 14. Is Israel a servant ? Is he a home-born ?* Why is he 
SPOILED ? No such tie seems to have existed between hired servants 
and their masters. Their untrustworthiness was proverbial. John 
x. 12, 13. They were reckoned at but half the value of bought ser- 
vants. Deut. XV. 18. None but the lowest class of the people en- 
gaged as hired servants, and the kinds of labor assigned to them re- 
quired little knowledge and skill. No persons seem to have become 
hired servants except such as were forced to it from extreme poverty. 
The hired servant is called " poor and needy," and the reason assign- 
ed by God why he should be paid as soon as he had finished his work 
is, " For he is poor, and setteth his heart upon it." Deut. xxiv. 14, 
15. See also, 1 Sam. ii. 5. Various passages show the low repute and 
trifling character of the class from which they were hired. Judg. ix. 
4 ; 1 Sam. ii. 5. The superior condition of bought servants is mani- 
fest in the high trust confided to them, and in their dignity and autho- 
rity in the household. In no instance is a hired servant thus distin- 
guished. The bought servant is manifestly the master's representative 
in the family, sometimes with plenipotentiary powers over adult children, 
even negotiating marriage for them. Abraham adjured his servant, 
not to take a wife for Isaac of the daughters of the Canaanites. The 
servant himself selected the individual. Servants exercised discretion- 
ary power in the management of their masters' estates, " And the ser- 
vant took ten camels of the camels of his master, for all the goods of his 
master were in his hand.'' Gen. xxiv. 10. The reason assigned 
is not that such was Abraham's direction, but that the servant 
had discretionary control. Servants had also discretionary power 



servant does well to make him as his friend, or he will prove to his employer as 
if he got himself a masier."— Maimonides, in Mishna Kiddushim. Chap. 1, 
Sec. 2. 
* Our translators in rendering it " Is he a home-born slave," were wise beyond 
, what is written, 

11 



82 



H. i^e disposal of property. Gen. xxiv. 22, 30,53. The condmon 
of Zlba in the house of Mephibosheth, is a case in pomt So is Frov 
xvii. 2. Distinct traces of this estimation are to be found in the New 
Testament, Matt. xxiv. 45; Luke xii. 42, 44. So in the parable of 
the talents, the master seems to have set up each of his servants m 
trade with a large capital. The unjust steward had large ducretwnary 
power, was "accused of wasting his master's goods," and manifestly 
regulated with his debtors the terms of settlement. Luke xvi. 4— ». 
Such trusts were never reposed in hired servants. 

The inferior condition of hired servants, is illustrated m the paraWe 
of the prodigal son. When he came to himself, the memory of his 
home, and of the abundance enjoyed by even the hwest class of ser- 
vantsin his father's household, while he was perishing with hunger 
among the swine and husks, so filled'him with anguish at the contrast 
that h'e exclaimed, " How many hired servants of my father, have bread 
enough and to spare, and I perish with hunger.' ^is proud heart 
broke. " I will arise," he cried, " and go to my father ; and hen to 
assure his father of the depth of his humility, resolved to add, Make 
me as one of thy hired servants." If hired servants were the supen^ 
class-to bespeak the situation, savored little of that sense of unworthi- 
ness that seeks the dust with hidden face, and cries " unclean. Un- 
humbled nature cU^r^s ; or if it falls, clings fast, where first it may. 
Humility sinks of its own weight, and in the lowest deep, digs lo.^i. 
The design of the parable was to illustrate on the one hand, the joy ot 
God, as he beholds afar off, the returning sinner "seeking an injureu 
father's face," who runs to clasp and bless him with an unch.ding wel- 
come ; and on the other, the contrition of the penitent, turmng home- 
ward with tears from his wanderings, his stricken spirit breaking with 
its iU-desert he sobs aloud, " The lowest place, the lowest place, I can 
abide no other " Or in those inimitable words, " Father I have sinned 
acrainst Heaven, and in thy sight, and am no more worthy to be cal.d 
thy son ; make me as one of thy hiked servants." The supposition 
that hired servants were the Mgfte.i class, takes from the parab.e an 
element of winning beauty und pathos. , <- 

It is manifest to every carcf„l studoa. of tho Bible, tl,a. me clas, ot 
servants, was on terms of equality >vi,l, the eWklren and other members 
of the family. Hence the foree of Paul's declaraUou, Gal. tv. 1, Now 
I say unto you, that the heir, so long as he is a ehild, n.FKKKETH No- 
IZ .J. s..».r. though he be lord of all. If ns were >e 
kired class, the prodigal was a sorry spectmen of "u" ty. Wo"U 
„,„ T ,.,.) !...,„ nut such language upon the lips of one held up by him- 



-as 

self, as a model of gospel humility, to illustrate its deep sense of all ill- 
desert ? If this is humility, put it on stilts, and set it a strutting, while 
pride takes lessons, and blunders in aping it. 

Israelites and Strangers belonged indiscriminately to each class of 
the servants, the bought and the UreA. That those in the former class, 
whether Jews or Strangers, rose to honors and authority in the family 
circle, which were not conferred on hired servants, has been shown. 
It should be added, however, that in the enjoyment of privileges, merely 
political, the hired servants from the Israelites, were more favored than 
even the bought servants from the Strangers. No one from the Stran- 
gers, however wealthy or highly endowed, was eligible to the highest 
office, nor could he own the soil. This last disability seems to have 
been one reason for the different periods of service required of the two 
classes of bought servants. The Israelite was to serve six years — 
the Stranger until the jubilee. As the Strangers could not own the 
soil, nor houses, except within walled towns, they would naturally at- 
tach themselves to Israelitish families. Those who were wealthy, or 
skilled in manufactures, instead of becoming servants would need ser- 
vants for their own use, and as inducements for the Strangers to be- 
come servants to the Israelites, were greater than persons of their own 
nation could hold out to them, these wealthy Strangers would naturally 
procure the poorer Israelites for servants. Lev. xxv. 47. In a word, 
such was the political condiiion of the Strangers, that the Jewish polity 
offered a virtual bounty, to such as would become permanent servants, 
and thus secure those privileges already enumerated, and for their 
children in the second generation a permanent inheritance. Ezek. 
xlvii. 21 — 23. None but the monied aristocracy would be likely to 
decline such offers. On the other hand, the Israelites, owning all the 
soil, and an inheritance of land being a sacred possession, to hold it 
free of incumbrance was with every Israelite, a delicate point, both of 
family honor and personal character. 1 Kings xxj. 3. Hence, to 
forego the control of one's inheritance, after the division of the pater- 
nal domain, or to be kept out of it after having acceded to it, was a 
burden grievous to be borne. To mitigate as much as possible such a 
calamity, the law released the Israelitish servant at the end of six* 

* Another reason for protracting the service until the seventh year, seems to 
have baen the coincidence of that period with other arrangements, in the Jew- 
ish economy. Its pecuniary responsibilities, social relations, and general inter- 
nal structure, were graduated upon a septennial scale. Besides, as those Israel- 
ites who had become servants through poverty, would not sell themselves, till 



84 



years; as, during that time-if of the first class-the partmon of the 
patrimonial land might have taken place ; or, if of the second enough 
money might have been earned to disencumber his estate, and thus he 
might assume his station as a lord of the soil. If neither contmgency 
had occurred, then after another six years the opportunity was again 
offered, and so on, until the jubilee. So while strong motives urged 
the Israelite to discontinue his service as soon as the exigency had 
passed which made him a servant, every consideration impelled the 
Stranger to prolong his term of service ;* and the same kmdness which 
dictated the law of six years' service for the Israelite, assigned as the 
general rule, a much longer period to the Gentile servant, who hau 
fvery inducement to protract the term. It should be borne in mind, 
that adult Jews ordinarily became servants, only as a temporary ex- 
nedieiit to relieve themselves from embarrassment, and ceased to be 
Ltwhen that object was effected. The poverty that ^^^^f^^^l 
it was a calamity, and their service was either a means of relief, or a 
measure of prevention ; not pursued as a permanent business, but le 
sorted to on emergencies-a sort of episode in the mam scope of their 
lives Whereas with the Strangers, it was a permanent employment 
pursued both as a means of bettering their own condition, and that ot 
their posterity, and as an end for its own sake, conferring on them 
privileges, and a social estimation not otherwise attainable. 

We see from the foregoing, why servants purchased from tne 
heathen, are called by way of distinction, the servaiits, (not bondmen 
1 They followed it as a permanent business. 2. Their term of ser- 
vice was much longer than that of the other class. 3. As a class they 
doubtless greatly outnumbered the Israelitish servants. 4. All the 
Stranc^ers that dwelt in the land were ini^torze^, required to pay an 
amiuaUax to the government, either in money, or in public service, 
(called a ^^ tribute of bondservice H in other words, all the Strangers 
\ycre national servants, Xo iho Israelites, and the same Hebrew word 
nsc.l to designate individual servants, equally designates national ser- 
vants or tributaries. 2 Sam. viii. 2, 6, 14 ; 2 Chron. vni. 7-9 ; 
Dout, XX. 11 ; 2 Sam. x. 19 ; 1 Kings ix. 21,22; 1 Kings iv. 21 ; 
Gen. xxvii. 29. The same word is applied to the Israelites, when they 

other expedients to recruit their finances had failed-(Lev. xxv. 35)-their *.- 
tS,^anis proclaimed such a state of their affairs, as demanded the labor 

.Wq rm,r<<p nf ucars fiiUv to reinstate ihcin. _ 

:ZI/I^er had tl>e same inducements to prefer a long term of service that 

those have who cannot own land, to prefer a long lease. 



86 

paid tribute to other nations. 2 Kings xvii. 3. ; Judg. iii. 8, 14 ; Gen. 
xlix. 15. Another distinction between the Jewish and Gentile bought 
servants, was in their kinds of service. The servants from the Stran- 
gers were properly the domestics, or household servants, employed in 
all family work, in offices of personal attendance, and in such mechan- 
ical labor, as was required by increasing wants and needed repairs. The 
Jewish bought servants seem almost exclusively agricultural. Besides 
being better fitted for it by previous habits, agriculture, and the tend, 
ing of cattle, were regarded by the Israelites as the most honorable of 
all occupations. After Saul was elected king, and escorted to Gibeah, 
the next report of him is, " And behold Saul came after the herd out of 
the field." 1 Sam. xi. 5. Elisha "was plowing with twelve yoke of 
oxen." 1 Kings xix. 19. King Uzziah " loved husbandry." 2 Chrou. 
xxvi. 10. Gideon was "threshing wheat" when called to lead the host 
against the Midianites. Judg. vi. 11, The superior honorableness 
of agriculture is shown, in that it was protected and supported by the 
fundamental law of the theocracy — God indicating it as the chief prop 
of the government. The Israelites were like permanent fixtures on 
their soil, so did they cling to it. To be agrculturists on t!ieir own 
patrimonial inheritances, was with them the grand claim to honorable 
estimation. When Ahab proposed to Naboth that he should sell him 
his vineyard, king though he was, he might well have anticipated from 
an Israelitish freeholder, just such an indignant burst as that which his 
proposal drew forth, " And Naboth said to Ahab, the Lord forbid it me 
that I should give the inheritance of my fathers unto thee." 1 Kings 
xxi. 2, 3. Agriculture being pre-eminently a Jewish employment, to 
assign a native Israelite to other employments as a business, was to 
break up his habits, do violence to cherished predilections, and put him 
to a kind of labor in which he had no skill, and which he deemed de- 
grading.* In short, it was in the earlier ages of the Mosaic system, 
practically to Jinjew him, a hardship and a rigor grievous to be borne, 
as it annihilated a visible distinction between the descendants of Abra- 
ham and the Strangers. To guard this and another fundamental distinc- 
tion, God instituted the regulation, " If thy brother that dwelleth by 
thee be waxen poor, and be sold unto thee, thou shalt not compel him 
to serve as a bond-servant." In other words, thou shalt not put him to 



* The Babylonish captivity seems to have greatly modified Jewish usage in 
this respect. Before that event, their cities were comparatively small, and few 
were engaged in mechanical or mercantile employments. Allerward their 
cities enlarged apare and trades multiplied. 



86 

servant's work — to the business, and into the condition of domestics. 
In the Persian version it is translated, " Thou shalt not assign 
to him the work of servitude." In the Septuagint, " He shall not 
serve thee with the service of a domestic." In the Syriac, " Thou 
shalt not employ him after the manner of servants." In the Sa- 
maritan, " Thou shalt not require him to serve in the service of a 
servant." In the Targum of Onkelos, " He shall not serve thee with 
the service of a household servant." In the Targum of Jonathan, 
" Thou shalt not cause him to serve according to the usages of the 
servitude of servants."* The meaning of the passage is, thou shalt 
not assign him to the same grade, nor put him to the same service, 
with perTnanent domestics. The remainder of the regulation is — 
" But as an hired servant and as a sojourner shall he be with thee." 
Hired servants were not incorporated into the families of their mas- 
ters ; they still retained their own family organization, without the 
surrender of any domestic privilege, honor, or authority ; and this, 
even though they resided under the same roof with their master. 
The same substantially may be said of the sojourner though he was not 
the owner of the land which he cultivated, and of course had not the 
control of an inheritance, yet he was not in a condition that implied 
subjection to him whose land he tilled, or that demanded the surrender of 
any right, or exacted from him any homage, or stamped him with any in. 
feriority ; unless it be supposed that a degree of inferiority would na- 
turally attach to a state of dependence however qualified. While 
bought servants were associated with their master's families at 
meals, at the Passover, and at other family festivals, hired servants 
and sojourners were not. Ex. xii. 44, 45 ; Lev. xxii. 10, 11. Hired 
servants were not subject to the authority of their masters in any such 
sense as the master's wife, children, and bought servants. Hence 
the only form of oppressing hired servants spoken of in the Scrip- 
tures as practicable to masters, is that of keeping hack their wages. 
To have taken away such privileges in the case under consideration, 
would have been pre-eminent " rigor ;" for it was not a servant born in 



* Jarchi's comment on " Thou shalt not compel him to serve as a bond-ser- 
vant" is, " The Hebrew servant is not to be required to do any thing which is 
accounted degrading — snch as all offices of personal attendance, as loosing his 
master's shoe-latchet, bringing him water to wash his hands and feet, waiting 
on him at table, dressing him, carrying things to and from the bath. The He- 
brew servant is to work with his master as a son or brother, in the business of 
his farm, or other labor, until his legal release." 



87 

the house of a master, nor a minor, whose minority had been sold by 
the father, neither was it one who had not yet acceded to his inheri- 
tance ; nor finally, one who had received the assignment of his in- 
heritance, but was working off from it an incumbrance, before enter- 
ing upon its possession and control. But it was that of the head of a 
family, who had known better days, now reduced to poverty, forced 
to relinquish the loved inheritance of his fathers, with the compe- 
tence and respectful consideration its possession secured to him, and 
to be indebted to a neighbor for shelter, sustenance, and employment. 
So sad a reverse, might well claim sympathy ^ but one consolation 
cheers him in the house of his pilgrimage ; he is an Israelite — Abra. 
ham is his father, and now in his calamity he clings closer than ever, 
to the distinction conferred by his birth-right. To rob him of this, were 
" the unkindest cut of all." To have assigned him to a grade of ser- 
vice filled only by those whose permanent business was serving, 
would have been to " rule over him with" peculiar " rigor." " Thou 
shalt not compel him to serve as a bond-servant," or literally, thou shall 
not serve thyself with him, with the service of a servant, guaranties 
his political privileges, and a kind and grade of service comporting 
with his character and relations as an Israelite. And " as a hired ser- 
vant, and as a sojourner shall he be with thee," secures to him his 
family organization, the respect and authority due to its head, and the 
general consideration resulting from such a station. Being already 
in possession of his inhei'itance, and the head of a household, the law 
so arranged the conditions of his service as to alleviate as much as 
possible the calamity which had reduced him from independence and 
authority, to penury and subjection. The import of the command 
which concludes this topic in the forty-third verse, (" Thou shalt not 
rule over him with rigor,") is manifestly this, you shall not disregard 
those diffei'ences in previous associations, station, authority, and 
political privileges, upon which this regulation is based ; for to hold 
this class of servants irrespective of these distinctions, and annihilating 
them, is to " rule with rigor." The same command is repeated in the 
forty-sixth verse, and applied to the distinction between servants of 
Jewish, and those of Gentile extraction, and forbids the overlooking 
of distinctive Jewish peculiarities, the disregard of which would be 
rigorous in the extreme.* The construction commonly put upon the 

* The disabilities of the Strangers, which were distinctions, based on a dif- 
ferent national descent, and important to the preservation of nation character- 
istics, and a national worship, did not at all affect their .wr/V/Z estimation. They 
were regarded according to their character and worth as persons, irrespective 
of their foreitrn orio^n, employments and political condition. 



88 

phrase " rule with rigor," and the inference drawn from it, have £in air 
vastly oracular. It is interpreted to mean, " you shall not make him 
a chattel, and strip him of legal protection, nor force him to work 
without pay." The inference is like unto it, viz., since the com- 
mand forbade such outrages upon the Israelites, it permitted and com- 
missioned then* infliction upon the Strangers. Such impious and 
shallow smattering captivates scoffers and libertines ; its flippancy and 
blasphemy, and the strong scent of its loose-reined license works 
like a charm upon them. What boots it to reason against such ram- 
pant affinities! In Ex. i. 13, it is said that the Egyptians, " made the 
children of Israel to serve with rigor." This rigor is affirmed of the 
amount of labor extorted and the mode of the exaction. The expres- 
sion " serve with rigor," is never applied to the service of servants 
under the Mosaic system. The phrase, "thou shalt not rule over 
him with rigor," does not prohibit unreasonable exactions of labor, 
nor inflictions of cruelty. Such were provided against otherwise. 
But it forbids confounding the distinctions between a Jew and a 
Stranger, by assigning the former to the same grade of service, 
for the same term of time, and under the same political disabilities as 
the latter. 

We are now prepared to review at a glance, the condition of the dif- 

• ferent classes of servants, with the modifications peculiar to each. 

In the possession of all fundamental rights, all classes of servants 
were on an absolute equality, all were equally protected by law in 
their persons, character, property and social relations ; all were 
voluntary, all were compensated for their labor, and released from it 
nearly one half of the days in each year; all were furnished with 
stated instruction ; none in either class were in any sense articles of 
property, all were regarded as men, with the rights, interests, hopes 
and destinies of men. In all these respects, all classes of servants 
among the Israelites, formed but one class. The different classes, 
and the differences in eac/t class, were, 1. Hired Servants. This class 
consisted both of Israelites and Strangers. Their employments were 
different. The Israelite was an agricultural servant. The Stranger 
was a domestic and personal servant, and in some instances mechani- 
cal; both were occasional and temporary. Both lived in their own 
families, their wages were money, and they were paid when their work 

.was done. 2. Bought Servants, (including those " born in the house.") 
This class also, consisted of Israelites and Strangers, the same dif- 
ference in their kinds of employment els noticed before. Both were 



89 

paid in advance,* and neither was temporary. The Israehtish servant, 
with the exception of the freeholder, completed iiis term in six years. 
The Stranger was a permanent servant, continuing until the jubilee. 
A marked distinction obtained also between difierent classes of Jewish 
bought servants. Ordinarily, they were merged in their master's 
family, and, like his wife and children, subject to his authority ; (and, 
like them, protected by law from its abuse.) But the freeholder was 
an exception ; his family relations and authority remained unaffected, 
nor was he subjected as an inferior to the control of his master, though 
dependent on him for employment. 

It should be kept in mind, that both classes of servants, the Israelite 
and the Stranger, not only enjoyed equal, natural and religious rights, 
but all the civil and political privileges enjoyed by those of their own 
people who were not servants. They also shared in common with 
them the political disabilities which appertained to all Strangers, wheth- 
er servants of Jewish masters, or masters of Jewish servants. Further, 
the disabilities of the servants from the Strangers were exclusively po- 
litical and national. 1. They, in common with all Strangers, could 
not own the soil. 2. They were ineligible to civil offices. 3. They 
were assigned to employments less honorable than those in which Is- 
raehtish servants engaged ; agriculture being regarded as fundamental 
to the existence of the state, other employments were in less repute, 
and deemed unjewish. 

Finally, the Strangers, whether servants or masters, were all pro- 
tected equally with the descendants of Abraham. In respect to polixi- 
cal privileges, their condition was much like that of unnaturalized 
foreigners in the United States ; whatever their wealth or intelligence, 
or moral principle, or love for our institutions, they can neither go to 



* The payment in advance, doubtless lessened the price of the purchase ; the 
servant thus having the use of the money, and the master assuming all the risks 
of life, and health for labor; at the expiration of the six years' contract, the 
master having sufifered no loss from the risk incurred at the making of it, was 
obliged by law to release the servant with a liberal gratuitj. The reason as- 
signed for this is, " he hath been worth a double hired servant unto thee in 
serving thee six years," as if it had been said, as you have experienced no loss 
from the risks of life, and ability to labor, incurred in the purchase, and which 
lessened the price, and as, by being your servant for six years, he has saved 
you the time and trouble of looking up and hiring laborers on emergencies, 
therefore, "thou shalt furnish him liberally," &c. 

This gratuity at the close of the service shews the jyrinciple of the relation ; 
cquivale-nt for value received. 

13 



90 

the ballot-box, nor own the soil, nor be eligible to office. Let a native 
American, be suddenly bereft of these privileges, and loaded with the 
disabilities of an alien, and what to the foreigner would be a light mat- 
ter, to him, would be the severity of rigor. The recent condition of 
the Jews and Catholics in England, is another illustration. Roths- 
child, the late banker, though the richest private citizen in the world? 
and perhaps master of scores of English servants, who sued for the 
smallest crumbs of his favor, was, as a subject of the government, in- 
ferior to the lowest among them. Suppose an Englishman of the 
Established Church, were by law deprived of power to own the soil, 
of eligibility to office and of the electoral franchise, would Englishmen 
think it a misapplication of language, if it were said, the government 
" rules over him with rigor ?" And yet his person, property, reputa- 
tion, conscience, all his social relations, the disposal of his time, the 
right of locomotion at pleasure, and of natural liberty in all respects, 
are just as much protected by law as the Lord Chancellor's. 

Finally. — As the Mosaic system was a great compound type, rife 
with meaning in doctrine and duty ; the practical power of the whole, 
depended upon the exact observance of those distinctions and relations 
which constituted its significancy. Hence, the care to preserve invio- 
late the distinction between a descetidant of Abraham and a Stranger, 
even when the Stranger was a proselyte, had gone through the iniria- 
tory ordinances, entered the congregation, and become incorporated 
with the Israelites by family alliance. The regulation laid down in 
Ex. xxi. 2 — 6, is an illustration. In this case, the Israelitish servant, 
whose term expired in six years, married one of his master's perma- 
nent female domestics ; but her marriage did not release her master 
from his part of the contract for her whole term of service, nor from 
his legal obligation to support and educate her children. Neither did 
it do away that distinction, which marked her national descent by a 
specific grade and term of service, nor impair her obligation to fulfil 
her part of the contract. Her relations as a permanent domestic grew 
out of a distinction guarded with great care throughout the Mosaic sys- 
tem. To render it void, would have been to divide the system against 
itself This God would not tolerate. Nor, on the other hand, would 
he permit the master to throw off the responsibility of instructing her 
children, nor the care and expense of tiieir helpless infancy and rear- 
ing. He was bound to support and educate them, and all her children 
born afterwards during her term of service. The whole arrangement 
beautifully illustrates that wise and tender regard for the interests of 
all the parties concerned, which arrays the Mosaic system in robes of 



91 

glory, and causes it to shine as the sun In the kingdom of our Father.* 
By this law, the children had secured to them a mother's tender care. 
If the husband loved his wife and children, he could compel his master 
to keep him, whether he had any occasion for his services or not. If 
he did not love them, to be rid of him was a blessing ; and in that case, 
the regulation would prove an act for the relief of an afflicted family. 
It is not by any means to be inferred, that the release of the servant 
in the seventh year, either absolved him from the obligations of mar- 
riage, or shut him out from the society of his family. He could doubt, 
less procure a service at no great distance from them, and might often 
do it, to get higher wages, or a kind of employment better suited to his 
taste and skill. The great number of days on which the law released 
servants from regular labor, would enable him to spend much more 
time with his family, than can be spent by most of the agents of our 
benevolent societies with their families, or by many merchants, editors, 
artists, &c., whose daily business is in New York, while their families 
reside from ten to one hundred miles in the country. 

We conclude this inquiry by touching upon an objection, which, 
though not formally stated, has been already set aside by the tenor of 
the foregoing argument. It is this, — " The slavery of the Canaanites 
by the Israelites, was appointed by God as a commutation of the 
punishment of death denounced against them for their sins."f If the 
absurdity of a sentence consigning persons to death, and at the same 
time to perpetual slavery, did not sufficiently laugh at itself, it would 
be small self-denial, in a case so tempting, to make up the deficiency by 
a general contribution. Only one statute was ever given respecting the 
disposition to be made of the inhabitants of Canaan. If the sentence 
of death was pronounced against them, and afterwards commuted, 
when 1 where ? by whom ? and in what terms was the commutation. 



* Whoever profoundly studies the Mosaic Institutes with a teachable and 
reverential spirit, will feel the truth and power of that solemn appeal and in- 
terrogatory of God to his people Israel, when he had made an end of setting 
before them all his statutes and ordinances. " What nation is there so great, 
that hath statutes and judgments so righteous as all this law which I set before 
you this day." Deut. iv. 8. 

t In the prophecy. Gen. ix. 25, the subjection of the Canaanites as a con- 
quered people rendering tribute to other nations, is foretold by inspiration. The 
fulfilment of this prediction, seems to have commenced in the subjection of 
the Canaanites to the Israelites as tributaries. If the Israelites had extermi- 
nated them, as the objector asserts they were commanded to do^ the prediction 
would have been falsified. 



92 

and where is it recorded ? Grant, for argument's sake, that all the 
Canaanites were sentenced to unconditional extermination ; how can a 
right to enslave them, be drawn from such premises 1 The punishment 
of death is one of the highest recognitions of man's moral nature pos- 
sible. It proclaims him rational, accountable, guilty, deserving death 
for having done his utmost to cheapen human life, when the proof of 
its priceless worth lived in his own nature. But to make him a slave, 
cheapens to nothing universal liwrian nature, and instead of healing a 
wound, gives a death-stab. What ! repair an injury to rational being 
in the robbery of one of its rights, not only by robbing it of all, but 
by annihilating their foundation, the everlasting dictinction between 
persons and things 1 To make a man a chattel, is not the punishment, 
but the annihilation of a human being, and, so far as it goes, of all 
human beings. This commutation of the punishment of death, into 
perpetual slavery, what a fortunate discovery ! Alas ! for the honor 
of Deity, if commentators had not manned the forlorn hope, and by a 
timely movement rescued the Divine character, at the very crisis of its 
fate, from the perilous position in which inspiration had carelessly left 
it ! Here a question arises of sufficient importance for a separate 
dissertation ; but must for the present be disposed of in a few para- 
graphs. Were the Canaanites sentenced by God to individual 
AND ttnconditional EXTERMINATION ? As the limits of this inquiry 
forbid our giving all the grounds of dissent from commonly received 
opinions, the suggestions made, will be thrown out merely as queries, 
rather than laid down as doctrines. The directions as to the disposal 
of the Canaanites, are mainly in the following passages, Ex. xxiii. 
23—33 ; xxxiv. 11 ; Dcut. vii. 16—24 ; ix. 3 ; xxxi. 3 — 5. In these 
verses, the Israelites are commanded to " destroy the Canaanites," to 
" drive out," " consume," " utterly overthrow," " put out," " dispossess 
them," &c. Did these commands enjoin the unconditional and univer- 
sal destruction of the individuals, or merely of the hodypolitic? The 
word hdrdm, to destroy, signifies national, as well as individual de- 
struction ; the destruction of j)o//<ica/ existence, equally with personal ; 
of governmental organization, equally with the lives of the subjects. 
Besides, if we interpret the words destroy, consume, overthrow, &;c., 
to mean personal destruction, what meaning shall we give to the ex- 
pressions, " drive out before thee," '• cast out before thee," " expel," 
" put out," " dispossess," &c., which are used in the same and in paral- 
lel passages ? In addition to those quoted above, see Josh. iii. 10 ; 
xvii. 18 ; xxiii. 5 ; xxiv. 18 ; Judg. i. 20, 29 — 35 ; vi. 9. " I will 
destroy all the people to whom thou shalt come, and I will make all 



thine enemies turn their backs unto iheeV Ex. xxiii. 27. Here " all 
their enemies''' were to turn their lacks, and " all the people" to be " de- 
stroyed" Does this mean that God would let all their enemies escape, 
but kill \h.eix friends, or that he would first kill " all the people" and 
THEN make them " turn their backs," an army of runaway corpses? 
In Josh. xxiv. 8, God says, speaking of the Amorites, " I destroyed 
them from before you." In the 18th verse of the same chapter, it is 
said, '• The Lord drave out from before us all the people, even the 
Amorites which dwelt in the land." In Num. xxxii. 39, we are told 
that " the children of Machir the son of Manasseh, went to Gilead, and 
took it, and dispossessed the Amorite which was in it." If these com- 
mands required the destruction of all the i?idividuals, the Mosaic law 
was at war with itself, for directions as to the treatment of native resi- 
dents form a large part of it. See Lev. xix. 34 ; xxv. 35, 36 ; xxiv. 
22.; Ex. xxiii. 9; xxii. 21; Deut. i. 16, 17; x. 17, 19; xxvii. 19. 
We find, also, that provision was made for them in the cities of refuge, 
Num. XXXV. 15, — the gleanings of the harvest and vintage were theirs. 
Lev. xix. 9, 10 ; xxiii. 22 ; — the blessings of the Sabbath, Ex. xx. 
10 ; — the privilege of offering sacrifices secured. Lev. xxii. 18 ; and 
stated religious instruction provided for them. Deut. xxxi. 9, 12. 
Now does this same law require the individual extermination of those 
whose lives and interests it thus protects ? These laws were given to 
the Israelites, long before they entered Canaan ; and they must have in- 
ferred from them, that a muilitude of the inhabitants of the land were 
to continue in it, under their government. Again Joshua was selected 
as the leader of Israel to execute God's threatenings upon Canaan. 
He had no discretionary power. God's commands were his official 
instructions. Going beyond them would have been usurpation ; refus- 
ing to carry them out, rebellion and treason. Saul was rejected from 
being king for disobeying God's commands in a single instance. Now if 
God commanded the individual destruction of all the Canaanitcs Joshua 
disobeyed him in every instance. For at his death, the Israelites still 
^'- dwelt among them" and each nation is mentioned by name. Judg. 
i. 27 — 36, and yet we are told that Joshua " left nothing undone of all 
that the Lord commanded Moses ;" and that he " took all that land." 
Josh. xi. 15 — 22. Also, that "there stood not a man of all their ene- 
mies before them. Josh. xxi. 44. How can this be if the command 
to destroy, destroy utterly, &c., enjoined individual extermination, and 
the command to drive out, unconditional expulsion from the country, ra- 
ther than their expulsion from the possession or ownership of it, as the 
lords of the soil ? That the latter is the true sense to bo attached to those 



94 

terms, we argue, further from the fact that the same terms are em- 
ployed by God to describe the punishment which he would inflict upon 
the Israelites if they served other Gods. " Ye shall utterly perish," 
"be utterly destroyed," "consumed," &c., are some of them. —See 
Deut. iv. 20; viii. 19, 20.* Josh, xxiii. 12, 13—16; I.Sam, xii 
25. The Israelites did serve other Gods, and Jehovah did. execute 
upon them his threatenings — and thus himself interpreted these threat- 
nings. He subverted their government, dispossessed them of their 
land, divested them of national power, and made them trilmtaries, but 
did not exterminate them. He " destroyed them utterly" as an inde- 
pendent body politic, but not as individuals." Multitudes of the Ca- 
naanites were slain, but not a case can be found in which one was 
either killed or expelled who acquiesced in the transfer of the terri- 
tory, and its sovereignty, from the inhabitants of the land to the Israel- 
ites. Witness the case of Rahab and her kindred, and that of the 
Gibeonites.! The Canaanites knew of the miracles wrought for the 

* These two verses are so explicit we quote them entire — " And it shall be if 
thou do at all forget the Lord thy God, and walk after other Gods and serve them, 
and worship them, I testify agaiicst you this day that ye shall sui ely ^ensA, as 
the nations which the Lord destroyed before your face, so shall ye perish." The 
following passages are, if possible, still more explicit — " The Lord shall send 
upon thee cursing, vexation, and rebuke in all that thou settcst thine hand 
unto for to do, until thou be destroyed, and until thou perish quickly." " The 
Lord shall make the pestilence cleave unto thee until he have consv.r.cd thee." 
" They (the 'swoid,' 'blasting;'&c.)shallpursuethee until thou/ifr/.'/t." "From 
heaven shallii. come down upon thee until thou he destroyed.'' 'All these 
curses shall come upon thee till thou be destroyed.^' " He shall put a yoke of 
iron upon thy neck until he have destroyed thee." " The Lord shall bring a =^ 
nation against thee, a nation of fierce countenance, which shall not regard 
the person of the old, nor show favor to the young, * * until he have destroyed 
thee." All these, with other similar threatenings of destruction, are contained 
in the twenty-eighth chapter of Dent. See verses 20— 25, 45, -18, 5L In the 
y^me chapter God declares that as a punishment for the same trangressions, 
:he Israelites shall " be removed into all the kingdoms of the earth," thus show- 
ingthatthe terms employed in the other verses, " destroy," " perish," " perish 
quickly," "consume,'' &c., instead of signifying utter, personal destruction, 
doubtless meant their destruction as an independent nation. In Josh. xxiv. 8, 
18, " destroyed"' and " drave out," are used synonymously. 

t Perhaps it will be objected, that the preservation of the Gibeonites, and of 
Rahab and her kindred, was a violation of the command of God. We answer, 
if it had been, wc might expect some such intimation. If God had strailly com- 
manded them to exterminate all the Canaanites, their pledge to save ihem alive, 
was neither a repeal of the statute, nor absolution i'or the breach of it. Uuncon- 
ditional destruction was the import of the command, would God have permitted 
such an act to pass without rebuke ? Would he have established such a prece- 



95 

Israelites ; and that their land had been transferred to them' as a 
judgment for their sins. Josh. ii. 9 — 11 ; ix. 9, 10, 24. Many of 
them were awed by these wonders, and made no resistance. Others 
defied God and came out to battle. These last occupied the fortified 
cities, were the most inveterate heathen — the aristocracy of idolatry, 
the kings, the nobility and gentry, the priests, with their crowds of 
satellites, and retainers that aided in idolatrous rites, and the military 
forces, with the chief profligates of both sexes. Many facts corrobo- 
rate the general position. Witness that command (Deut. xxiii. 15, 16,) 
which, not only prohibited the surrender of the fugitive servant to his 
master, but required the Israelites to receive him with kindness, per- 
mit him to dwell where he pleased, and to protect and cherish him. 
Whenever any servant, even a Canaanite, fled from his master to the 
Israelites, Jehovah, so far from commanding them to kill him, straitly 
charged tliem, " He shall dwell with thee, even among you, in that 
place which he shall choose — in one of thy gates where it liketh him 
best — thou shalt not oppress him." Deut. xxiii. 16. The Canaan, 
itish servant by thus fleeing to the Israelites, submitted himself as a du- 
tiful subject to their national government, and pledged his allegiance. 
Suppose all the Canaanites had thus submitted themselves to the Jewish 
theocracy, and conformed to the requirements of the Mosaic institutes, 
would not all have been spared upon the same principle that one was ? 
Again, look at the multitude of tributaries in the midst of Israel, and 
that too, after they had " waxed strong," and the uttermost nations 
quaked at the terror of their name — the Canaanites, Philistines and 
others, who became proselytes — as the Nethenims, Uriah the Hittite — 
Rahab, who married one of the princes of Judah — Jether, an Ishma- 
elite, who married Abigail the sister of David and was the father of 
Amasa, the captain of the host of Israel. Comp. 1 Chron. ii. 17, with 
2 Sam. xvii. 25. — Ittai — the six hundred Gittites, David's body guard. 
2. Sam. XV. 18, 21. Obededom the Gittite, adopted into the tribe of 
Levi. Comp. 2 Sam. vi. 10 11, with 1 Chron. xv. 18, and xxvi. 4, 5 

dent when Israel had hardly passed the threshold of Canaan, and was then strik- 
ing the first blow of a half century war 1 "What if they had passed their word 
to Rahab and the Gibeonites 1 Was that more binding than God's command 1 
So Saul seems to have passed his word to Agag ; yet Samuel hewed him in 
pieces, because in saving his life, Saul had violated God's command. When 
Saul sought to slay the Gibeonites in" his zeal for the children of Israel and 
Judah," God sent upon Israel a three years' famine for it. When David inquir- 
ed of them what atonement he should make, they say, " The man that devised 
against us, that we should be destroyed from remaining in any of the coast of 
Israel, let seven of his sons be delivered," &c. '3 Sam. xxi. 1 — 6. 



96 

— Jaziz, and Obil. 1 Chron. xxvii. 30, 31. Jephunneh the Ksnezite, 
Josh. xiv. 6, and father of Caleb a ruler of the tribe of Judah. Numb, 
xiii. 2, 6 — the Kenites registered in the genealogies of the tribe of 
Judah, Judg. i. 16 ; 1 Chron. ii. 55, and the one hundred and fifty 
thousand Caananites, employed by Solomon in the building of the 
Temple.* Besides, the greatest miracle on record, was wrought to 
save a portion of those very Canaanites, and for the destruction of those 
who would exterminate them. Josh. x. 12 — 14. Further — the terms 
employed in the directions regulating the disposal of the Canaanites, such 
as " drive out," " put out," "cast out," "expel," "dispossess," &c., seem 
used interchangeably with " consume," " destroy," ovethrow," &c , and 
thus indicate the sense in which the latter words are used. As an ii- 
lustration of the meaning generally attached to these and similar 
terms, we refer to the history of the Amalekites. " I will utterly put 
out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven. Ex. xvii. 14. 
" Thou shalt blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under hea- 
ven ; thou shalt not forget it." Deut. xxv. 19. " Smite Amalek and 
utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not, but slay both 
man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep." 1 Sam. xv. 2, 
3. " Saul smote the Amalekites, and he took Agag the king of the 
Amalekites, alive and utterly destroyed all the people with 
the edge of the sword." Verses 7, 8. In verse 20, Saul says, " [ 
have brought Agag, the king of Amalek, and have utterly destroyed the 
Amalekites." In 1 Sam. xxx. I, 2, we find the Amalekites marching 
an army into Israel, and sweeping everything before them — and this 
in about eighteen years after they had all been "utterly destroy- 
ed!" In 1 Kings ii. 15 — 17, is another illustration. We are informed 
that Joab remained in Edom six months with all Israel, " until he had 
cut off every r/iaZe" in Edom. In the next verse we learn that Hadad 
and " certain Edomites" wei'e not slain. Deut. xx. 16, 17, will proba- 
bly be quoted against the preceding view. Wc argue that the com- 
mand in these verses, did )iot include all the individuals of the Canaan- 
itish nations, but only the inhabitants of the cities, (and even those condi- 
tionally,) because, only the inhabitants of cities are specified — "of the ci- 
ties of these people thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth." Cities 
then, as now, were pest-houses of vice, they reeked with abomina- 
tions little practised in the country. On this account, their influence 

♦ If the Canaanites were devoted by God to unconditional extermination, to 
have employed them in 'he erection of the temple, — what was it but the climax 
of impiety 1 As well might they pollute its altars with swine's flesh or make 
their ?ons pass through lae fire to Molocli. 



97 

would be far more perilous to the Israelities than that of the country. 

Besides, they were the centres of idolatry — there were the temples 
and altars, and idols, and priests, without number. Even their build- 
ings, streets, and public walks were so many visibilities of idolatry. 
The reason assigned in the 18th verse for exterminating them, 
strengthens the idea — " that they teach you not to do after all the 
abominations which they have done unto their gods." This would 
be a reason for exterminating all the nations and individuals around 
them, as all were idolaters ; but God commanded them, in certain 
cases, to spare the inhabitants. Contact with any of them would be 
perilous — with the inhabitants of the cities peculiarly, and of the Ca. 
naanitish cities pi'e-eminently so. The 10th and 11th verses con. 
tain the general rule prescribing the method in which cities were to 
be summoned to surrender. They were first to receive the otTer of 
peace — if it was accepted, the inhabitants became tributaries — but if 
they came out against Israel in battle, the men were to be killed, and 
the woman and little ones saved aUve. The 15th verse restricts this 
lenient treatment to the inhabitants of the cities afar off. The 16th 
directs as to the disposal of the inhabitants of the Canaanitish cities 
They were to save alive " nothing that breathed." The common 
mistake has been, in supposing that the command in the 15th verse 
refers to the whole system of directions preceding, commencing with 
the 10th, whereas it manifestly I'efers only to the inflictions specified in 
the 12th, 13th, and, 14th, making a distinction between those Canaan- 
itish cities thaXfought, and the cities afar off that fought — in one case 
destroying the males and females, and in the other, the males only. 
The ofter of peace, and the conditional preservation, were as really 
guarantied to Canaanitish cities as to others. Their inhabitants were 
not to be exterminated unless they came out against Israel in battle. 
Whatever be the import of the commands respecting the disposition to 
be made of the Canaanites, all admit the fact that the Israelites did 
not utterly exterminate them. Now, if entire and unconditional exter- 
mination was the command of God, it was never obeyed by the Israel- 
ites, consequently the truth of God stood pledged to consign them to the 
same doom which he had pronounced upon the Canaanites, but which 
they had refused to visit upon them. " If 5'^e will not drive out all the in- 
habitants of the land from befoie you, then it shall come to pass that 
* * I shall do unto you as I thought to do unto them." iS'um. xxxiii. 55, 
56. As the Israelites were not exterminated, we infer that God did 
not pronounce that doom upon them ; and as he did pronounce upon 
them the same doom, whatever it was, which they should refuse to 
13 



98 



visit upon the Canaanites, it follows that the doom of unconditional ex- 
termination was not pronounced against the Canaanites. But let 
us settle this question by the "law and the testimony." "There 
was not a citv that made peace with the children of Israel save the 
Hivites, the inhabitants of Gibeon ; all others they took in battle. 
For it was of the Lord to harden their hearts, that they should come 
OTTT AGAINST IsRAEL IN BATTLE, that he might destroy them utterly, 
and that they might have no favor, but that he might destroy them, 
as the Lord commanded Moses." Josh. xi. 19, 20. That is, if 
they had not come out against Israel in battle, they would have had 
" favor" shown them, and would not have been " destroyed utterly." 
The great design was to transfer the territory of the Canaanites to 
the Israelites, and along with it, absolute sovereignty in every re- 
spect ; to annihilate their political organizations, civil polity, and ju- 
risprudence, and their system of religion, with all its rights and ap- 
pendages ; and to substitute therefor, a pure theocracy, administered by 
Jehovah, with the Israelites as His representatives and agents. In a 
word the people were to be denationalized, their political existence an- 
nihilated, their idol temples, altars, groves, images, pictures, and hea. 
then rites destroyed, and themselves put under tribute. Those who 
resisted the execution of Jehovah's purpose were to be killed, while 
those who quietly submitted to it were to be spared. All had the 
clioice of these alternatives, either free egress out of the land;* or 
acquiescence in the decree, with life and residetJe as tributaries, 
under the protection of the government ; or resistance to the execu- 
tion of the decree, wUh death. " And it shall come to pass, if they 
will diligently learn the ways of 7ny people, to swear by my name, the 
Lord liveth, as they taught my people to swear hy Baal; then shall 

THEY BE BUILT IN THE MIDST OF MY PEOPLE." 

[The original design of the preceding Inquiry embraced a much wider 
range of topics. It was soon found, however, that to fill up the outline 
would be to make a volume. Much of the foregoing has therefore been 
thrown into a mere series of indices, to trains of thought and classes of 
proof, which, however limited or imperfect, may perhaps, afford some 
facilities to those who have little leisure for protracted investigation.] 

* Suppose all the Canaanitish nations had abandoned their territory at the 
tidings of Israel's approach, did God's command require the Israelites to 
chas^themto encsofthe earth, and hunt ihem out. until every Canaanite was 
destroyed'! It is too preposterous for belief, and yet iilbllows legitimately from 
that construction, which interprets the terms " consume," " destroy," "destroy 
utterly," &c. to mean unconditional, individual extermination. 



3 3 

3 3 

^■3„: 3 : 

>3: --^ : 

v.3^3 - : 



3->3 i>; >o~jD 3 ^^ 






3 ^>^ i>o-i^i> 3^;^3:^s'>'» 

:> 3)^3 '^'-^'.yy ^^'Z»y>^ 



3 ^3 l>_ xv^^ 



3-;33 

3 ■/I> 
3x53 



> 3 3 ^"3*5^^3 
$> 3 73':3S>:)^^ 
S) 3 )3Z>):'I 



^^ 



3 ^I> >:-> '^ '3 r 

3:>Q3 3^>-5) J' 

3>53 ^'*)':«) ^ __ 

3 ")3 >>,>':5) 3 3 



3 O 



5 s :b-: 3 



• 3 33 ^:>}^ 3 

;r> ot- ;3J>>3 v>.^^ ^ 

3 '3 3 >'>3 •^:";» , 

3 -3 >>3 >v^-.» 3 

■ 3 3. 3 !> D 3 3) ■">>> ^> 

3 3 3 xD^ j):.)-!, : 
_ 3 3 3 5>-D 3 ->).»>)" 



3 3^ 3 3 3 

► '--->.■ 3 Z> 35 3 
)':> Tr^oiy -3 >^3 

'^ "3.;3 3 y^^ 

'^3 .>"3 3 ^)_- 
J3 ■> ^.3' '50 Z 



3:3 



-> 3 . 

3j- > ;:33:3 
'5>' :^ 3^-)- 3 
•^o > 3^^> ; 
' >. 3 3:)>i> 

>>:3"3d:3 

>3>.^:3 333 

^ '3:> Z>3>3 
>vy3:) "3:^33 

>> >3>:-' :r ^ "^ 

>> ' 35> ^ . .^ 
>5 ^ 33> :> :>:>:> 
^:» •^3fc)> 3 ):>3 
>:> ^3» 3.)0 

">^ > jIXJ.s- ":> :> 5> 

>^ ) 3I» 3 :)D 



^^^ 3 



3 3:3 .DO'^^-3^ 

> > 3 30 3.- 3 ^ 

■ m > T >'3 0)3 13 "3 3 

' yo > ::):3J5)^ :3 33 

8)^3 3 ))^ 3 ^ j>:i> :>»j) 3- "^ ^ 

^*,3 :>■:>:> o > >:2» o>3> z> >^ V 3 

>vss^3. 3>> "%:> ,. >^ >),-) -^ ^^ >3 

f^^^'^3 • ,>^>") v:>- ^o3 3:)^ '"3 ^ 'O 
. >? ^ ^ ^>> i> ; >:)^3 -.3 3 -^3 

' <)^ >,■>!>•.. x>^:> 3 -v^j 
'■ 33)) ;i> ,,o-i> yy^T> -^ ..^ Vl 

' 3?;) D-'viVD -S^^- .^^-^-T] 

• ->JO :>;^. o .R>:)^ 3.^>:2 



^■"3 3 y'»f^ ■ »:>. -^ 

■^■3 3, :»vSS)3. >)•> "%:> 
>3 3 . or,r 

-»;3' 3 ■"?>• >;o 
1,;,^ ^. -'^^ 3y)^ 

?.''^ 3 "'3 :)))i> 
^'^ 3 v>> ->,^ 

, |;i^ 3 ••3 3)3 

^5^ -^3 3;>^^ 






3)3 ; 3>3 ::5^3 ^ir 



•■,5 .»)> 5>.:):) 

/>^^> ■ X> 3") 

3-'->^ J>.3^ 

3.'0 3> 3t 

-3> J) ^ 



»)"3>) 



>V)3 x>:»;^ 

) :)D 3:»>i7> 

> ->>:> Sy.'^ Aim 

:):3 )3 T) v]^ 

).)3 JO ) 



3 >^')^ lb^T> 
3^D> ■.0»3 

> > -> ) :.^ j> 3 



?"? 3))3 
V3 3):>)3 



■> . >) 

>> yy- 



» 3)3 >3o 
: ) vc> » o 

-■^3>5> .33^ ; 

>* >'>D ;>:)>:> y 






? >^-3^^ o )^8>^3 a»:. ^ ^ ; 
'^'^^^^ X»^'P >3>:> <>> 



?9f^ 3 

^. >3 O 

3_0 3 
:> 

■ 3>: 
:> ) 

5 ^^ 3 ) 

33:>...^^ ) 






^^>^3J» 3 >'^ <) ', 



^?? 3> » 



^ ^^ 3 






' '-) - J> >3 >3 --.^ 3 

-:> >3 3> )3 3 3 

- »:> :»:>>> •> 3 
> 3 ^3 3 3 3 



) 3 33 3) 

> 3 J>:>3 3>X 



3 3 



)> J 
» I> 
^> 3 



•,j;3 .> . ^^ 



'■-*- -» >>]! 

3, >:>^ 

* ^3 »•)); 

, 3- >2D^ 3 

'3 y> :)^ >• 






O.JO O v;0>3D-> 5 )»> 

^. »o o wo» ]>> -> v:)3 



> i)i> >> ■ .!> ^ 






:i> o >> :> :>^ 

2^ ::>.o :> 3u) ~^2m j> ^^ 

^>_ 
3i>3o :>?> 



00 : 
^^ ^ o 5 ^ ^ 






^4r -^ S> Zf J> >) ^ ) )-) 



o ^. 5> 

oyx> 

0)X> 
3D2> 









3f>:> t^ ^ >^> 

:>5)o 133 ^ -^^ 



^ 2> 

3 '3 
3^3 
3 3 



35)0 

> D3 



3/)0 

^^> o 

":^ )3 

:^))3 



3 3 ^>:>:)3 

3-3 3>:)I> 



> J> 3 >1)3^- 

-^-*'^ 3 i ')3a*' ":!) 

>)^ ^-^^^^ 
<^-* 3 :> o^* T>. 

3^>i 3 > 3:» < 
^j^ .) ^3 ^ 



^>3 ' 



ia> yr 



03 .> 
0)3 > 



3 3r» 3:)X>: 

3')^»> OV3" 

3 ^l^l» ^^^T^ 



5 i> - J' ■ 



•)-.3>0-> 
) 3^j)> 



)3J]> 



':>B3 









^3ii> 3 i5 > 



)3g»3:) 



3>3 j*g) > . 



"2> 5>.:> 
3 ^> 

3a> 



)i 



^V^ 






y i 
■ 3 )^ 

3/> 

.^ »- ■ 

3 »3i.»^. >> 



>^ :?^^':» 



-•>>. »,. j'.'y-' y> 



> 
> 



,3> )' >J> 






